KraneXL

Bike don't have the same limitations of cars or other motor vehicles. For one, bike aren't a metal shell that would protect you in the event of a crash. That means, what happens to the other person, happens to you too. Bikes are also human power which again puts you in direct contact with any obstacles and limits your forward motion.

Even the average motorcycle can weigh hundreds of pounds and could cause a significant amount of damage due to its power and weight. Additionally the footprint of a car or larger vehicle could cover an entire group of persons, while a bike would typically only displace a single individual.

Of course the biggest difference is that a cyclist is "out in the open" and with an unobstructed view can see (and hear) without even slightest structural interference.

In my test ride, a cyclist coming to a complete stop was not only a waste of time and energy, but totally unnecessary (when you can clearly see that there's nothing there) for all but a small fraction of blind roads and paths. Nevertheless, with that said, one cannot discount the law which technically, still requires a cyclist to stop.

Colnago Mixte

I do (often) come to a complete stop, especially when there's a cop within view. No, I don't put my foot down, that's a red herring, a full stop is a full stop regardless of whether you unclip and put your foot down or not. Is that a law somewhere? If so, don't think I've ever seen it.

I personally like to accelerate from a dead stop, it suits my style of riding, and every stop sign gives me an opportunity to torque my frame out to the max while sprinting and getting back up to cruising speed.

Cops (bored small town city cops especially) actually do have the audacity write up cyclists for blowing stop signs from time to time, unbelievably to some here. That's also a factor, but stopping is mainly just habit for me at this point, just as some here have made their habit to NOT stop at stop signs.