December 6, 2006
OPEN APPEAL LETTER:
To whom it may concern:
I am contesting my ticket ###### from officer NAME, badge number #### for taking a left hand turn at approximately 8am despite a sign excluding left hand turns between 7am and 9am. I am contesting it for the following reasons:
1. I live in the neighborhood for which that sign was erected to protect.
2. A verbal warning would have sufficed, instead of a $50 traffic violation.
3. A traffic violation causes unnecessary financial harm via increased insurance premiums over the next 6 years for a violation that posed a danger to no one.
Please let me explain my logic point by point:
1. I live in the neighborhood for which that sign was erected to protect.
From what I understand, exclusion signs are erected for one of two reasons: One, to prohibit unsafe turns against traffic during rush hour times. Or, two, to protect the neighborhood from the adverse effects of traffic during rush hour times. I believe the sign was erected for the latter reason, and until today, as a resident of the neighborhood it was designed to protect, I was thankful that there was protection in place to stop the speeders on Beechmont.
The reasons I believe the sign was not erected for unsafe turns is because there is plenty of space for cars to pass on the right of a vehicle trying to take a left hand turn, the traffic is relatively light on Pleasant St (the street that must be crossed) when compared to night-time rush hour (for which there is no exclusion) and the next available left hand turn to get into my neighborhood is on Park Ave and requires crossing two lanes of traffic at a light without a left-hand arrow — a much more risky proposition.
2. A verbal warning would have sufficed, instead of a $50 traffic violation.
As a resident of the neighborhood and the father of a young child, I always drive below posted speed limits in my neighborhood (and other neighborhoods, for that matter) and am on the look out for children. I would never knowingly break a law in my neighborhood or elsewhere. When I was pulled over by officer NAME I was nonplused. I had no idea why I had been pulled over, having only made the turn at nights prior to December 6, 2006 and had discounted the sign as one to which I would likely never need to know, since my travels in Worcester in the AM have not taken me in that direction until December 6. Clearly, I now know that the sign is there and enforced. With that knowledge, I will never take that turn again. That point could have been just as easily made with just a verbal warning.
3. A traffic violation causes unnecessary financial harm via increased insurance premiums over the next 6 years for a violation that posed a danger to no one.
The punishment does not fit the crime. Since this ticket is for a traffic violation, it will be on my insurance for 6 years to come and will result in over a $1000 of increased premiums. This is excessive, taking into account the argument as outlined above. I crossed the street in the face of no oncoming traffic without endangering anyone. As a result will have to pay a ticket 20x over in my insurance premiums? Again, a warning would have provided the same information and change in behavior without the financial harm.
Since there was no one coming the other way when I made the turn, and the sign was erected to protect the residents of the neighborhood of which I am a resident, I believe the ticket is without warrant. As I result, I kindly ask you to dismiss the ticket ######. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Eric Sagalyn
—–
Comments, suggestions, indignation welcome.
One of the great things (out of many, many great things) about having a child who’s learning the language is rediscovering how fun words are. Pineapple is a good example. Say it out-loud: “Pineapple!” Gotta admit, it’s fun to say. It also happens to be one of Hayes’s favorites. And can you blame him?