A controversial pedestrian safety ordinance in Dover has taken a significant step forward, but it's not without its critics. The ordinance, which aims to restrict standing in medians or approaching vehicles at intersections and impose fines, has been a hotly debated topic since its introduction in October 2025. With a 7-3 vote, the Dover committee has cleared the way for it to move to the next stage, but the debate is far from over.
The proposed ordinance, which fines first-time violators with a warning, second-time offenders $15, and third-time offenders $50 within 12 months, has divided the city. Supporters argue that it is essential for both pedestrian and driver safety, citing the growing issue of people standing in busy intersection medians. However, opponents claim that imposing fines on those already struggling is unfair and that the ordinance is unconstitutional, infringing on people's rights and free speech.
The measure, originally scheduled for a second and final reading in January, was sent back to the committee for review and returned this past Tuesday after technical wording was clarified and amendments were added. Dover Councilman Dave Anderson, the ordinance's sponsor, said the revisions strengthen the measure.
"What we've done with the amendments, it's gone back and forth, and has been referred back to the committee for consideration of some technical amendments to make it even stronger legally." The updates include wording changes and the removal of a previous section of the ordinance, formerly known as Section H.
Section H was originally included to designate safe areas for people standing in medians, but council leaders decided to remove it from the updated ordinance, saying existing policies already address these efforts and the section could distract from pedestrian safety. The updates also added a severability clause, ensuring the rest of the law would remain in effect if any part is challenged in court, and clarified that the ordinance does not apply to sidewalks, private property, or medians wider than seven feet.
Anderson said these changes strengthen the ordinance and better position it to protect pedestrians. "It's clear, it's precise, it's easy to explain to someone what they can and can't do." However, opponents said the changes still don't make the ordinance effective.
Chelle Paul, a Dover community activist and founder of Divided We Fall, said the ordinance remains problematic. "It's teetering on- it's a violation of constitutional rights- you can't create an ordinance if the ordinance does not have a state law to support it." Paul also questioned how the city could enforce a median safety law when no equivalent state law currently exists. "If you read the verbiage of the ordinance, it's lining up with the state law that actually is being held under legal scrutiny right now. If the attorney general is not going to enforce this law, why does the city think that they can create a law pattern behind the same law that the state is in court for?"
She said the proposal could also expose the city to bigger problems if it moves forward. "This ordinance is not going to resolve the issue. It's going to create legal liability for the city, and they will get the lawsuits to back this up." The second and final reading of the ordinance is scheduled for February 23 in Dover. But here's where it gets controversial... Will the ordinance be effective in improving pedestrian safety, or will it infringe on people's rights and free speech? And this is the part most people miss... The city's ability to enforce the ordinance without a supporting state law could be a significant challenge. What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
