Micromobility ordinance

An electric unicycle rider who said regulating devices by motor power misses the point — restrictions should target dangerous behavior, not wattage, noting fast cars are legal on Carmel streets.

Asked the council not to vote yet, saying the public-facing ordinance document was outdated, committee amendments weren't posted, and the committee video was only posted five hours before the meeting.

Urged the council to study other cities' successful micromobility enforcement systems like Springfield, Missouri, and said he remains troubled by the dismount zone on the Monon trail.

Praised the city's 50th anniversary event, suggested doubling fines for minors caught riding without helmets, and asked the city to openly mention the Flock camera spending in budget discussions.

An electric unicycle rider from Pendleton said he was pulled over on 106th Street despite riding responsibly, and described a catch-22 where his device is treated as an e-moto but can't be registered — asking for behavior-based enforcement and a legal path for EUCs.

Representing a 700-member PEV community, he supported the safety goal but argued the ordinance wrongly targets device capability (watts, top speed) rather than rider behavior, and noted a Carmel goal of 2-5% micromobility commuting by 2030.

An engineer and EUC rider explained that high wattage is safety headroom for balance, not speed-seeking, and asked the ordinance to separate actual operating speed from machine capability, citing Illinois's approach.

A former councilor, honoring the late Bruce Kimball, said the ordinance is too technical to enforce or communicate, urged education before enforcement, and asked the council to send it back to committee for a clean-slate rewrite.

Brought an electric unicycle to the podium, argued against a de facto total ban, said her riding group stopped coming to Carmel because of last year's ordinance, and asked for sensible behavior-based rules instead.