A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 46.32-833 and 46.2-905 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 46.2-821.1, relating to traffic regulation; bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electric power-assisted bicycles, and motorized skateboards or scooters.
HB661 would change Virginia traffic law for people riding bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electric power-assisted bicycles, and motorized skateboards or scooters. It creates a new rule allowing these users to treat a stop sign as a yield sign at certain intersections, so long as the intersecting roads each have no more than two motor vehicle travel lanes, the rider is at least 15 years old or accompanied by an adult, the rider slows to a reasonable speed, and the rider yields to pedestrians and other vehicles. The bill also revises traffic-light rules to clarify when these riders may proceed through a steady red light, including a stop-and-yield procedure and a limited pedestrian-signal-based exception for bicycles and similar devices.
The bill further updates the roadway-positioning rules for bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, mopeds, and related devices, including when riders must stay near the right curb, when they may ride two abreast, and when they must move into single file on higher-speed roads. It also preserves existing civil-liability rules by stating that failure to move into single file is not negligence per se. In addition, the Department of Conservation and Recreation would be required to allow electric personal assistive mobility devices on bicycle paths or trails it designates for that use.
The bill’s impact would be to amend multiple sections of the Code of Virginia governing traffic control, bicycle operation, and use of shared paths, while adding a new section specific to stop-sign intersections. It would expand the legal framework for micromobility users and clarify their rights and duties at intersections and on roadways, while leaving general duties to yield to pedestrians and other traffic intact. The bill also affects enforcement and penalty provisions tied to traffic-light violations.
The general sentiment appears favorable toward the bill’s transportation-safety and mobility goals, as reflected by its unanimous 14-0 committee vote before being continued to the next session in Finance and Appropriations. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to suggest organized opposition in the available materials.
The main points of contention likely center on safety and enforcement: whether allowing riders to yield instead of stop at certain stop signs could increase risk at intersections, whether the age threshold and adult-supervision requirement are sufficient, and how the red-light exceptions would be applied in practice. Another possible issue is the effect on motorists and pedestrians sharing the roadway, especially in higher-speed or narrow-lane environments. The bill also touches on access to conservation trails, which could raise questions about trail management and user conflicts.
HB661 would amend §§ 46.2-833 and 46.2-905 and add § 46.2-821.1 to the Code of Virginia, changing how certain non-motorized and micromobility users may navigate stop signs, traffic lights, and roadway positioning rules. It would create a new yield-at-stop-sign exception for bicycles, e-bikes, electric personal assistive mobility devices, and motorized skateboards or scooters under specified conditions, revise red-light procedures for these users, and require DCR to permit electric personal assistive mobility devices on designated bicycle paths or trails. The bill would also preserve existing traffic infraction penalties and clarify that certain lane-positioning violations do not create negligence per se in civil cases.
The available voting history suggests broad support, with the bill advancing 14-0 in committee before being continued to the next session in Finance and Appropriations. Because no committee transcripts are included, the record does not show detailed arguments for or against the measure, but the unanimous vote indicates little visible opposition at that stage. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a transportation and micromobility policy update rather than a controversial measure.
Likely areas of contention include whether allowing a yield instead of a full stop at certain intersections could compromise safety, especially for younger riders or in mixed traffic. Stakeholders may also differ on the red-light exception, the age/adult accompaniment requirement, and whether the bill gives micromobility users too much discretion at intersections. Motorist and pedestrian safety advocates may focus on enforcement and right-of-way concerns, while bicycle and micromobility advocates are likely to support the bill as a modernization of traffic rules and trail access.