At four way stop locations, where there is low traffic, traffic usually do not
come to a complete stop before passing through the intersection. Would it be
appropriate and more consistene with how traffic actually flows to sign such
intersections with four yield signs? The present signing is a real money maker
for an agressive police man.

All-way yield is expressly forbidden in the manual. Think about the safety
implications of four drivers approaching the intersection at 30 - 40 mph,
without intending to stop.

If you have "four way stop locations, where there is low traffic," perhaps
all-way stop is not warranted,and two way stop or two way yield is more
appropriate.

"All-way yield is expressly forbidden in the manual". I am unable to locate
anything in the manual that prohibits the use of all-way Yield. I agree it is
poor practice and should not be used, but I am seeing more agencies usings at
traffic circles. I would like to see something added to the next edition
(2009) of MUTCD to specificly prohibit all-way Yield (except for roundabouts).

The MUTCD does say this in 2B.08:
-----------------
Support:
The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an
intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down or stop
when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic.
------------------
Since it assigns the r-o-w to certain approaches, those approaches by
definition may not also be controlled by a YIELD or STOP sign. So while it's
not explicit, it is inferred that all-way YIELD is not permitted.

I'm suggesting language to be added to the next edition, making that a STANDARD.

In Britain there's no such thing as a multi-way stop and STOP signs themselves
are very rare. At a crossroads, we'd simply decide which was the more major
route and erect "GIVE WAY" (Yield) signs on the other two apporoaches. The
initial level of provision is road markings, then the sign. In rural areas,
it's almost always just the markings. Either that or, in urban areas, install a
mini-roundabout, as is shown in your NPA document. The GIVE WAY sign tends to
be the default method of junction control if a roundabout or traffic signals
aren't around.

I understand the NPA seems to be tending towards an increase in the use of
Yield signs. Surely this is a more practical and reasonable solution for
locations where flows are light and visibility is good.

Is multiway stop-sign control used in any European country? When a US attendee
asked a Norwegian speaker about multiway stop control at a Transportation
Research Board annual meeting, the Europeans in the audience laughed (the
speaker smiled and said simply, "We don't use 4-way stop signs").

I know that Germany does not use multiway stops, but diverges from UK practice
in that, under conditions detailed in section 8 of the Verwaltungsvorschrift
zur Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung, some (small, low-volume) intersections may be left
unprioritized. In this case, the "general right of way" rule (which the Germans
call the "right before left" rule) applies, i.e., if two drivers approach the
intersection on different approaches, the driver on the left approach is
obliged to yield.

At an unsignalized German intersection where the "right before left" rule is
not to apply, priority must assigned to a (single) roadway by means of signs.
This determination is made on the basis of "the character of the streets, the
traffic volumes, the superordinated traffic management, and the visual
impressions of the road users. In no case may the official functional
classification of the roads be decisive" (my translation; in German:
"...Keinesfalls darf die amtliche Klassifizierung der Straßen entscheidend
sein").

If it is a low volume intersection with relatively balanced approach volumes on
conflicting legs, I would consider no traffic control assigning ROW (all
aproach vehicles yield based on rules of the road). If used consistently in an
area (such as intersections in low to medium density residential areas), these
intersections can operate with low delays and low crash frequency.