Powered by i.TV
October 6, 2015

Michelle Rodriguez, speed demon

by Anna Johns, posted Dec 14th 2005 3:55PM
michelle rodriguezMichelle Rodriguez, who plays Ana Lucia on Lost, has paid nearly $1,000 in traffic fines in Hawaii since August of this year. Here's a rundown of her offenses:
  • August, fined $197 for going 90 mph in a 50 mph zone
  • October, fined $300 for going 90 mph in a 35 mph zone (!)
  • November, fined $357 for going 83 mph in a 55 mph zone
Rodriguez just pleaded no contest to the November citation and paid the big fine. And, of course, she's still waiting for her court date on those lovely drunk driving charges from earlier this month. And, she was charged with 3 misdemeanors in in 2003 in LA for hit and run, drunk driving, and driving without a license. I don't know who scares me more: Ana Lucia or Michelle Rodriguez.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:
Maurice Tift

I hope things work out for her. The only solution I know for drinking and driving is to have an extra driver go with you to parties. Certainly, there's a LOST fan or two out there in Hawaii who would volunteer to go to parties (no drinking for the fans) and drive the actors around! :)

January 06 2006 at 1:54 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
joseph frasciello

Vehicles killed 153 pedestrians in newjersey in 2004 about one fifth of fatal accidents in new jersey kill a pedestrian a figure that trails only newyork and Hawaii and is well above the national average of 12 percent . you can take the girl out of newjersey but you cant take new jersey out of the girl. J FRAZZ

January 05 2006 at 8:04 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
bruce alm

The Answer to the Problem of Drunk Driving, etc.

Copyright: 1987-2005 Bruce Alm. Documentation is available.

The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.

This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;

murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.
If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.

There could also be many other positive results; families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we've all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.

This new law could go something like this:

Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.

For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.

What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?

What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.

This permit doesn't seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.
Most people of drinking age have a driver's license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don't drive.

This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.

After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.

Would this be a violation of rights? There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.

This could be a good saying, "If a person who doesn't know how to drive shouldn't have a license to drive, a person who doesn't know how to drink shouldn't have a license to drink."

Here are some other pluses to this idea:

A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.

A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could become things of the past.

What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.

Even though A.A. members as a group don't become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.

A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said "One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S.." If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue 'down the drain,' and so on.

But it doesn't seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.

Even with the problems this new law could present, it still

December 29 2005 at 11:22 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I was in oahu this summer... it's easy to get going that fast in those zones since the roads are all basically two lane with speed limits from 25-55 and the traffic typically flows at around 60-65ish. There's nothing but pineapple plantations for crying out loud! I'm not saying she shouldn't be driving (you drink, you drive, you should be made to ride a bike or walk), but I can understand some of the speeding there.

December 15 2005 at 11:45 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Hawaii makes more money from people paying off their speeding tickets than putting them in jail, like others have said. I'm more surprised that she hasn't learned to speed and keep an eye out for the cops. I speed (not 90 in a 35, but 60 in a 40 sometimes), but I know where to look for the cops and I can spot their cars from a distance.

December 14 2005 at 11:43 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Actually Ben, it is the perfect photo choice for this article. It was taken by police after her drunk driving arrest.

December 14 2005 at 9:41 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I'm pretty sure every state has differant laws around "speeding" As far as felony's go. I would think some place like Hawaii makes more money giving out tickets than taking drivers off the road. From the look of things it would appear that most of the cast of "Lost" has speeding tickets (While in Hawaii) -- the math would imply that a lot of speeding tickets must be giving out there in general... which to me, sounds like "economics". As for Ms. Rodriguez, she's young, clearly "fiesty" let's just hope she comes up with a creative way to learn from this... I would never wish this much press on my "youthful choices".

December 14 2005 at 8:41 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Shouldn't she be in jail for driving 90 in a 35? I thought speeding that fast was a felony.

December 14 2005 at 8:05 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

What a bad photo choice.

December 14 2005 at 7:53 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

...and she still has a driver's license how? We could have another Halle Berry on our hands folks

December 14 2005 at 6:34 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners