I agree this is worth a conversation so here is mine. I think the law as-is is already ambiguous enough (due to its complex nature) that our society waste huge

I agree this is worth a conversation so here is mine. I think the law as-is is already ambiguous enough (due to its complex nature) that our society waste huge amount of energy and resources arguing about its meanings. Anything that can be "rigidly" defined (and therefore enforced) with little downside* is a win in my book, purely from a practical perspective. * Just like in this particular case (rolling stop), the "downside" of enforcing full stop compared to a subjective "safe rolling stop" is close to none. And about the spirit of the law, to me it's pretty simple: if an illegal practice works better in this regard than the "legal" alternative, sure, we should seriously consider if we need to punish people doing so. But in most of cases people bringing this in, both practices are perfectly aligning with the spirit of the law. Paired with the practicality argument above, there isn't much point to allow rolling stop as it doesn't make the road "safer" than full-stop. Also, as someone coming from a country that doesn't have stop sign, people are spoiled and don't know how genius this idea is. In an ideal world where everyone follows traffic law and pay full attention to the road all the time, stop sign isn't really needed. However, people are not machine. The whole points of stop sign is to force these distracted drivers to pay attention at intersections, even if only out of fear of getting a ticket. This kind of "foolproof" safety technique is not as excessive as it may look like at the first glance. Therefore, I'd argue having people full stopping is exactly the spirit of stop sign.