Case Date:

7/24/2025

on Rogers/Madison, where it changes name and crosses over the railroad tracks just north of 11th street, the bike lane is on the uphill side of the street. so at the apex, it switches from one side of the street to the other. at this switching point, we have lost our 'dashed line' merge zones. i am hoping that someone from Engineering will go look at the facts on the ground and validate its correctness. when it was conceptually designed back in 2011, i thought "gee they're gonna have to do a good job of signing that if it's not going to be a nightmare for cyclists to merge into traffic". and then when it was *finally* implemented around 2017-2019, it was just striped lines indicating that there is a merge. but when the bridge was re-decked in 2020-2021, they repainted it wrong. and subsequent generations of painting have each made it worse, to where the southbound merge zone is completely missing and cyclists are directed to stay in the abruptly-ending bike lane on the dangerous high speed downhill segment. and the northbound merge zone has been reduced to about 30 feet, again, at the wrong place for the merge.

Case Date:

4/19/2024

To whom it may concern, The following describes multiple code violations from Chandler Automotive that I noticed/experienced during the process of retrieving my towed car from their site. I have video/audio evidence of the violations, and I would prefer if someone reached out to me so I can submit these as proof. It will only allow me to upload images through this submission form. Thank you: BMC 4.32.140(b): Called the number at around 5:30pm to ask to retrieve car, employee stated that she will not be able to get my car until about 9:30/10pm. This is in violation of part 1 of section B, as well as violation of part 2 of section B, since this was well outside the sixty minutes. I recorded the phone call where the employee told me 10pm. Please reach out if you would like this evidence. BMC 4.32.140(f): The invoice, see attached, is not itemized correctly pursuant to the requirements of I.C. 24-14-5-1. The invoice is missing/incorrectly accounted for the following: - I.C. 24-14-5-1(4)(D) - No VIN number. - I.C. 24-14-5-1(4)(C) - No year. - I.C. 24-14-5-1(5) - License plate # is incorrect. - I.C. 24-14-5-1(C) - No explanation is given for the additional charges incurred, which is required here. BMC 4.32.130(a)(2) - The company attempted to charge me $185 for the tow. One $25 charge being a go jack fee, and the other being a dollies fee. Since a go jack fee is a special fee, the total for those should not be $50 according to the code, but a maximum of $25. They corrected this upon me providing them a copy of the code. However, I have audio recording of them attempting to charge me that amount, and being unable to explain these additional charges. BMC 4.32.120(a) - As stated above, the towing company failed to comply with applicable state law in the invoice. BMC 4.32.120(e) - The vehicle was not able to be claimed upon calling at 5:30pm on 4/18/2024. Please reach out for a copy of the evidence as I am not able to upload it here. These laws were created by the legislature with the intention to be construed strictly due to the stated purpose of this chapter being to protect the public from unconscionable practices (BMC 4.32.010). Please reach out to me if you have any additional questions. I plan on following up in fourteen (14) days if I have not heard back from the city on this matter by that time. Thank you for taking the time to read this complaint, and I appreciate your enforcement of the laws of our wonderful city. Respectfully, Matt Shelton