Cyclists have extensive practice in avoiding getting hit by cars, so I expect there will be little difference in cyclist injuries from this change.

It's counter-intuitive, but the data [0][1] is quite clear that laws like these significantly improve safety for bicyclists. I found this video [2] useful in understanding what might be going on.

[0] https://www.bikede.org/delaware-yield-crash-data/#page-conte... ("All reported injury crashes involving bicycles at stop sign controlled intersections dropped 23% in the 30 months after adopting the Safety Stop compared to 30 months prior to adoption")

[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/18WEQdDpxSmgETZBFPh5iO8LGAL9... ("In year after adopting the “Idaho Stop,” crashes between bicyclists and motorists fell 14.5%, and Boise was 30-60% safer on a bicycle compared to similarly sized cities")

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM

This is already in effect in Idaho. In my experience, the cyclists that ride dangerously do so regardless of this rule.

Sure, but at least an innocent driver is less likely to get arrested if the cyclist was breaking the law.

In NYC most cyclists seem to already do this.

As stop signs? Usually as yields or as green lights, surely?

Fair enough, at most as stop signs.

Self resolving problem?