This cannot work at 4-way stops for the same reason that 4-way yields cannot work.

The yield sign / statute says that if there is a collision, it is prima facia evidence that the person with the yield sign failed to yield. So we have yield signs, but absolutely no 4-way yield intersections.

Think about it. If two crash from a 4-way yield, who is the prima facia fault party?

Now the 4-way stops work because we require the driver on the left to yield to the driver on the right. So if there is a crash, we know who had the duty to yield.

Either state that the 4-way stop intersections are not a part of this law (like that will get real confusing) or, better yet, write that the 4-way stop sign situations require the rider on the left to yield and the rider on the right is exempt from the prima facia yield statute.

I think it can be done. How does Idaho handle it?

Eric Post, Esq.
Bicycle / Aviation
3256 East Speedway Boulevard
Tucson, AZ 85716
(520) 207-9601

[ed comment: Aren't unmarked intersections (which we do have now) the equivalent of 4-way yields? I.e. drivers must yield to the driver on the right; but, unlike a 4-way stop, there is no duty to come to a complete stop when the way is clear ]

[Eric answers...]
No, because there is no prima facie language in the statutes about unmarked
intersections. It just follows the regular right-of-way law. The regular
right-of-way is altered with a yield sign, so if you have a 4 way yield, the
problem becomes one of arguing adnauseum as to which one really violated the
rule.

The problem is ARS 28-855 C – “…If after driving past a yield sign without
stopping the driver is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the
intersection, the collision is prima facie evidence of the driver’s failure
to yield the right-of-way.”

So I think the way to fix this is to keep the yield to the one on the right
rule for 4 way stops.

Ed says: Lynn — legislatively, no, going the “full Idaho” was considered too radical at this time. But in the situation you’re describing the signal is “inoperative” in my opinion (insert standard I-am-not-a-lawyer disclaimer here. use at your own risk!), and the law already accounts for that, see 28-645, just make a FULL stop and then go when safe. Dismounting, waiting endlessly, etc. are not required.