Here's the data presented in the video:

In Delaware in the 30 months following enacting their Idaho Stop law collisions involving cyclists at stop signs fell by 23%, and overall collisions involving cyclists fell by 8%.

There was also discussion of motivation for rolling stop laws in US states. Idaho, which made this change years before any other state, did so to reduce the number of trivial cases using up traffic court resources. Other states were motivated to remove a pretext that police use to stop and detain people, especially people of color.

Colorado has the safety stop. If no one else has right of way, we can pass through stop signs at up to 10-15mph. In practice, visual blocks mean we have to slow down quite a bit, but where there is visibility, there are some 4-ways I can very easily blow through. We can also pass through a red light once we come to a complete stop provided nobody else has the right of way. In practice, very little changed except now I put 100% of my effort into scanning for traffic, rather than 50% watching traffic and 50% scanning for the police. Going through downtown is also faster now that I don't have to dwell at the lights. Overall, this just legitimizes something that happens anyway. Cars roll through stops every day, it would be silly to ticket a cyclist for it.

Uh...I mean...a stop for a car is like a yield and pass slowly for a bike...no? :D

So many towns redefining stops as yields. I hope they invent a yellow light or a yellow sign to replace the red ones, and they can once again match the standard for stop and yield sign colours.

Given that a good part of cyclists ignore signs and traffic lights anyway, what's the point?

You don't need to pass a test or read the road law books to buy a bicycle. It's not a motor vehicle. Therefore it is not bound by motor law.