I believe that law takes it into account. If you approach the intersection and there is an approaching vehicle that has a reasonable chance to collide with you if you proceed, then - by definition - intersection is not clear and you are obliged to stop. Let alone the fact that in the absence of 4-way stop that vehicle may have the right of way.
If restricted visibility does not allow you to assess whether the intersection is clear - stopping always is also the right thing to do.
This is actually what this law is about. The difference between a cyclist at a stop sign and your average vehicle is visibility. Cyclists don't have blind spots the way cars & trucks do.
So if you can reasonably see that there is no immediate traffic, you don't have to wait at an intersection and risk hoping that another driver at a 4 way stop will respect the stop sign. This whole law is being called the "Colorado Safety Stop" but was initially called an Idaho stop [1][2]. It resulted in a 23% reduction in bicycle crashes in intersections with STOP signs only [3].
Even if you think the results are not intuitive, they are certainly backed by data. Making this a law just means cyclists won't be harassed by law enforcement for doing what is statistically known to be safer.
If restricted visibility does not allow you to assess whether the intersection is clear - stopping always is also the right thing to do.