This seems to be an inevitable consequence yes.

The Idaho stop changes the rules of a 4 way stop, because bikes have three modes, and cars have two.

I'll assume we all know the rules of a 4-way, which, by the way: 4-way stops suck, they should be roundabouts in almost all cases, and this nonsense is a big part of why they suck.

That said: two cars rolling up to stop signs can know which one gets to cross.

If it's a bike, the bike gets to cross.

If the car claims the right of way out of a full stop, and the bike is not in roll-mode (which it has absolutely no business being, in this scenario), the bike to stop.

But look: if a car is at a stop and a bike is heading across its path on any reasonable vector, hitting the gas is asshole behavior. Cool your jets.

That's the moral intuition, the rule needs to be that bikes get the tie break on any right-of-way question involving stop signs.

It is, to end where I began, a consequence of having the Idaho rule in the first place.

No, it is their fault because THEY refused to yield. As they do all the time. Like at least once a day I see this. How many drivers do you think yield to me when they turn right on red?

It is FAR less than the law requires of them.

Oh, and since the idaho stop is legal in my state, they refuse to yield then as well. Breaking the law....