from the link I posted above

6. Safety of pedestrians is decreased at unwarranted multi-way stops, especially small children. It seems that pedestrians expect vehicles to stop at the stop signs but many vehicles have gotten in the habit of running the "unnecessary" stop sign. Thirteen references found this to be their finding. (References 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 45, 51, 55 and 63).

Note that an unwarranted 4-way is one with good sightlines. 4-ways may still be appropriate where the sightlines are poor until one gets to the stop line.

Forces people to look both ways. Yield signs leave drivers only looking left (for the traffic they have to yield to).

Since when has a stop sign 'forced' anyone to look both ways?

Drivers tend to only look in the direction traffic usually comes from - if making a right turn that is usually to the left, if going thru that is usually to the left and right.

Al

It does no such thing. The law may require that they look both ways, but people are in no way "forced" to obey the law. In point of fact, people tend to follow norms of behavior rather than the letter of the law. The rolling stop is a perfect example of this. The law requires a full stop, but cars and bicycles alike, by convention, do not come to a full stop if they think there is no other traffic at the intersection.

I've heard it suggested that safety would be increased by actually removing the signs altogether in many situations because it would force people to actually think about what they had to do. (See Tom Vanderbilt's fascinating book, Traffic, for instance.)

True enough, some drivers are bad drivers, but a STOP sign gets GOOD drivers to look all ways.

Good drivers look all possible ways (including behind) for both vehicles and peds on both sidewalk and roadway no matter if a stop, a yield, a green light or no sign at all.

Al

Too bad good drivers aren't the problem.