The Fishers City Council had a lively work session Monday evening with talk of a possible bicycling ordinance and discussion of the local sign rules.

After a local resident asked the city to consider an ordinance dealing with cycling, city staff began researching.  Lindsey Bennett outlined what state law says about cycling.  That statute says cyclists may not ride more than two abreast, are required to have both hands on the handle bars and there are other requirements for lighting on the bike.

Bennett told council members the city could, if the council chooses, supplement the state laws.  Police Chief Mitch Thompson explained what his officers deal with regularly such as cyclists weaving in and out of traffic and riding more than two -abreast.  On the other hand, vehicle drivers are sometimes in the bicycle lanes or turn in front of the bicycles.

Any proposed ordinance would attempt to deal with the rights and responsibilities of both cyclists and motorists, according to Mayor Scott Fadness.

One proposal would call for a $35.50 fine for motorist violations and $20 for cyclists running afoul of a city ordinance, city officials said.

Chief Thompson told the council he wants an even-handed ordinance dealing with both bicyclists & motorists.

“The incidents we deal with, with bicyclists and motorists, are almost always road rage incidents” said Chief Thompson. “The bicyclist does something that upsets the car, the car then retaliates, and we’ve had collisions, we’ve had fist fights.”

One idea is to have a three-foot ring surrounding a bicycle as a safe zone where a vehicle is not to encroach, but Thompson says that provision is very difficult for his officers to enforce unless new technologies come on line to help.

There was a discussion of how difficult it can be for motorists to deal with cyclists on the narrow former county roads that are common on the east side of Fishers.

Councilman Brad DeReamer said his constituents want some roads where cycling is not allowed, such as 136th Street, due to the dangers involved.

Mayor Fadness told council members he will instruct his staff to prepare a draft ordinance for their consideration.

On the issue of signs…..City Attorney Chris Greisl briefed the council on a recent Supreme Court case stemming from a measure passed in the municipality of Gilbert, Arizona.  That decision severely restricted local government’s ability to limit the content of a sign.  Greisl said the city has been eliminating any local sign ordinance provisions relating to content and limiting any regulation to number and size of signs within certain areas.

Then, Greisl explained a new state law enacted by the General Assembly last year.  It says 60 days before an election, even ordinances governing size and number of signs cannot be enforced during that 60 day period, and 6 days following the election.

We are within 60 days of the May 8th primary election now, so unless there is a public safety issue on certain signs, the city should not be enforcing the size and number ordinance.  This applies to private property and neighborhoods, according to Greisl.

Greisl emphasized that the state law applies to private property only.  The ruling on the Hamilton County ordinance by Judge William Hughes does not set a legal precedent, according to Greisl.

Fishers does not regulate content on signage within the city right-of-way.

“We have a public safety standard that says there are no signs to be allowed in our right-of-way,” said Greisl.  “I think, from that standpoint, we’re still going to be okay going forward.”

When the City of Fishers removes a sign in the municipal right-of-way, city staff will dispose of the sign.  This policy began in the previous election season.  Before that, the confiscated signs were kept and the owners were allowed to retrieve them.