Advocacy & Safety - 70 speeding tickets in 5 months....

>> LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060812/od_nm/speeding_dc_2)

This lady is insane..... she should NOT be on the roads.... :eek:

Sat Aug 12, 9:24 AM ET

PHOENIX, Arizona (Reuters) - As a mortgage broker in Arizona, Francesca Cisneros is used to working with big numbers. It's the double-digit speed limits she has trouble with.
ADVERTISEMENT

Cisneros racked up 70 speeding tickets in the last five months, a record for the Scottsdale Police Department, police said on Friday.

Speeding cameras in Scottsdale, a suburb of Phoenix, snapped pictures of the 32-year-old woman as she tore through the sun-baked city in her Honda Civic between March 2 and July 31.

"She told arresting officers she was speeding because she seemed to be late for client meetings all the time," Scottsdale Police Department spokesman Mark Clark told Reuters. "I guess she's got some time management issues."

The second-worst offender in the department's history accumulated a mere 25 tickets, Clark said.

Police said Cisneros said she threw her speeding tickets away because she thought nothing could happen to her if she didn't pay them.

Clark said Cisneros faces some $11,000 in fines and could have her license suspended.

Geez,
next week I will be riding in Phoenix... I think I'll pay attention to any Honda Civic around...

Ricardo

Clark said Cisneros faces some $11,000 in fines and could have her license suspended.

Could?

I had an unpaid parking ticket and received a letter saying my license would be suspended, car seized and family tortured if I didn't pay.

PHOENIX, Arizona (Reuters) - As a mortgage broker in Arizona, Francesca Cisneros



Police said Cisneros said she threw her speeding tickets away because she thought nothing could happen to her if she didn't pay them.

Clark said Cisneros faces some $11,000 in fines and could have her license suspended.
You'd think with the education required for her job, she would have heard of a bench warrent. Too bad she isn't in Hampton County, SC, they charge a cool $500 court costs for every ticket.

Now that is excessive!! There is something wrong with that lady.

I can't understand why is isn't already revoked. I mean how many points is that? A few hundred?

I once was caught fishing without a license. Yes, I know. I suck. I paid the fine, but they didn't take personal checks. I tried a guaranteed check and they refused that. Mind you they just refused these forms of payment without a detailed explanation and all by mail.

Finally I got a money order, but by then it was late. I had the police threatening to arrest me and revoke my license! I got it straightened out and all was fine.

It just goes to show that not all laws make sense if I can get arrested for fishing without a license but this lady can be caught speeding every other day for 5 months and they are just CONSIDERING revoking her license.


Police said Cisneros said she threw her speeding tickets away because she thought nothing could happen to her if she didn't pay them.


Dangerous and stupid.

She likely had no demerit points assigned at all. IF the laws there work like they do here, the photo radar cameras are nothing more than a money grab. They cannot be used to assign demerit points, since they nail the owner of the car with no attempt made to identify the driver due to privacy concerns (when they were introduced here, this was pointed out, and the government said they knew that, so that was why they would assign no demerit points since there was no proof of who was actually driving...) About the only good thing that was done when the neocon twerps were elected here in the mid 90s was to eliminate these cameras, although they are starting to creep back in again (they did not do as they claimed which was to reduce traffic fatalities on the highways where they were being used, fatalities actually went up that year...). As well, I would not be suprised if they would be thrown out of court based on the fact that they cannot prove she was driving (unless a, she admitted to it, and b, the law is written in such a way as to prevent such an appeal).

Be that as it may, she has a problem, but is not any worse than anyone else really - static photo radar site will catch a habitual speeder a significant number of times for any amount over the slack allowed by the camera setup if they pass it frequently enough. Here, it is common for people to go 60kmph in a 50kmph zone. If the camera was static, and set up for 55kmph, a person could net many tickets a day if they pass by it enough, even though they are not speeding significantly, and their speedo might be out just enough so it appears they are barely speeding at all. However, in the real world, people are given more latitude than that since there is so much variance in speedo accuracy. What I would like to see (or at least see publicized) is how many people are pulled over for tailgating, dangerous lane changes, crowding other road users, and speeding where there is a significant speed differential between them and the rest of traffic (which are offences that are actually dangerous...)

Now imagine if such a system was in place to nail cyclists breaking the laws they love to break. Some cyclists in areas where bikes = vehicles would find themselves buried in fines so fast it would make your head spin. Go the wrong way on the road? BAM fine. Run a red or stop sign? BAM a fine. I would support that kind of system as wholeheartedly as one like it for cars.

Imagine if you were her husband. ugh
Divorce.....

multiply this lady by about 2,000,000 and you have the typical Phoenix driver. :eek: actually, her picture in the paper was kind of cute .... :D she''ll probably be looking to purchase a bike soon...'

This woman should not be allowed to drive, plain and simple.

70 in 5 months...that's more than my lifetime, and I was a pretty bad leadfoot for a while, until I had to be a juror in a case where someone my age was ran down by a car...that straightened me out. I had 7 tickets, over the course of 8 years...how she got 70 is beyond me.

Really, this woman needs to start taking a cab.

how she got 70 is beyond me.



Photo radar.... It is not hard.

I would LOVE it if they installed these things in south florida......

I would just LOVE IT.

So there's no law in AZ that says that if you get a certain number of moving violations, license suspension is automatic? We have that in MA, but of course, it doesn't make the roads any safer for anyone. Driving with a suspended / revoked license is just something people do here, sort of like breathing.

Yeah, I'd say that this person should not be granted the legal privilege of driving on public roads. Let me take a guess: she's got a lawyer who will fix it up.

Some place they installed 2 cameras, 1 for the rear plate and the other to identify the driver. I would like to see more radar cameras on traffic lights so the could catch people who gas it when the light goes amber. This is particularly dangerous, as it may result in a high speed accident at a place where there are plenty of others around to be involved in secondary hits.

Its annoying that they didin't list how fast she was over. If it was liek 10mph+ she's a complete moron. If its 1-5 mph each time, I dunno. Shes still a moron for not responding to her tickets.
However, I hate all government cameras. Back when i lived in the UK, it was particularrly bad, could see like 20 CCTV cameras from my dorm room.
I like my privacy please.
Plus they malfuction, thousands of tickets in CA had to be revoked when it was found that some cameras were taking pictures during greens. I can't imagine speed cameras don't ahve the same faults. (Though 70 makes it obvious she did speed) Also, rear-end accidents increase at camera intersections -- this is increased by the fact that camera intersections get shorter yellows.
Also, most of these camera are controlled by companies (like Northrop-Grumman) who are paid by the ticket, not a flat fee. They have an incentive to increase teh number of tickets at the expensive of fairness. This is easier because most people don't contest these tickets.
However, privacy's the big issue for me. I don't want any cameras, either point toward the street, the sidewalk, or my house.

[QUOTE=sgtsmile]She likely had no demerit points assigned at all. IF the laws there work like they do here, the photo radar cameras are nothing more than a money grab. They cannot be used to assign demerit points, since they nail the owner of the car with no attempt made to identify the driver due to privacy concerns (when they were introduced here, this was pointed out, and the government said they knew that, so that was why they would assign no demerit points since there was no proof of who was actually driving...)
As well, I would not be suprised if they would be thrown out of court based on the fact that they cannot prove she was driving (unless a, she admitted to it, and b, the law is written in such a way as to prevent such an appeal).[quote]


Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the cameras have to ID the driver in the USA? Does it very from state to state? I had a Chief of a small police force in Missouri tell me that the cameras have to clearly show who is driving the vehicle. I've only seen one photo radar ticket, it has been a few years ago, but it had a clear photo of the driver. I think it had an additional photo of the license plate as well. (It wasn't my ticket - some lady at work had it taped up on her office window.)

If that was the case, she might be smoked. Here, that is not the case, and photo radar and red light cameras only get back plates and the owner is fineed

If that was the case, she might be smoked. Here, that is not the case, and photo radar and red light cameras only get back plates and the owner is fineed
They do this is some states, but is not assessed as a moving violation.
Its like a parking ticket with lower fines and no points. Which makes sense without the ID. Anyone could be driving, and givn that some camera tickets delay by up to 6 months, you kight hve no clue who was driving.

She likely had no demerit points assigned at all. IF the laws there work like they do here, the photo radar cameras are nothing more than a money grab. They cannot be used to assign demerit points, since they nail the owner of the car with no attempt made to identify the driver due to privacy concerns (when they were introduced here, this was pointed out, and the government said they knew that, so that was why they would assign no demerit points since there was no proof of who was actually driving...) About the only good thing that was done when the neocon twerps were elected here in the mid 90s was to eliminate these cameras, although they are starting to creep back in again (they did not do as they claimed which was to reduce traffic fatalities on the highways where they were being used, fatalities actually went up that year...). As well, I would not be suprised if they would be thrown out of court based on the fact that they cannot prove she was driving (unless a, she admitted to it, and b, the law is written in such a way as to prevent such an appeal).

Be that as it may, she has a problem, but is not any worse than anyone else really - static photo radar site will catch a habitual speeder a significant number of times for any amount over the slack allowed by the camera setup if they pass it frequently enough. Here, it is common for people to go 60kmph in a 50kmph zone. If the camera was static, and set up for 55kmph, a person could net many tickets a day if they pass by it enough, even though they are not speeding significantly, and their speedo might be out just enough so it appears they are barely speeding at all. However, in the real world, people are given more latitude than that since there is so much variance in speedo accuracy. What I would like to see (or at least see publicized) is how many people are pulled over for tailgating, dangerous lane changes, crowding other road users, and speeding where there is a significant speed differential between them and the rest of traffic (which are offences that are actually dangerous...)

Now imagine if such a system was in place to nail cyclists breaking the laws they love to break. Some cyclists in areas where bikes = vehicles would find themselves buried in fines so fast it would make your head spin. Go the wrong way on the road? BAM fine. Run a red or stop sign? BAM a fine. I would support that kind of system as wholeheartedly as one like it for cars.

One of the problems with speed limits, is that many people have forgotten that the limit is the maximum, speed your vehicle is permitted to legally travel at. If that is 50km/h then technically at 50.000001 km/h your breaking the law. Heck if your flying downhill on a skateboard at 50.000001km/h your breaking the law, and skateboards (along with bicycles, roller blades and feet do not typically come with speedometers). The fact that police will not pull you over for going 20% over the limit, is stupid, but it's an enforcement issue.

As for cyclists and traffic violations, yes I think they should be pulled over, riding on a sidewalk is probably the one that urks me the most, especially since the riders are often teens in loose fitting pants on a BMX style bike, and they will not hesitate to take you out, if you happen to be on their sidewalk. There are also the old pooters, but they are usually travelling below a walking pace anyway. Traffic lights, I always stop, the only real stickler is the stop sign. Often because the stop sign is used, to slow down traffic, even though there are other techniques that work just as well. For example on one street near me, there are 7 stop signs, only one is actually needed for traffic engineering, the rest are simply so that someone who puts the pedal-to-the-metal, only gets up to about 60km/h before they need to skreetch to a stop for the next stop sign. even though it's a 40km/h zone.

However, privacy's the big issue for me. I don't want any cameras, either point toward the street, the sidewalk, or my house.
I have some bad news for you. Nowadays, pretty much every retail establishment records you when you are on the premises. Security cameras owned by businesses and private individuals record you when you are off the premises. And they can do whatever they like with their footage.

To get on photo radar, you actually have to break the law so you can opt out of being recorded. And since what is done with the information is public knowledge, there are limitations on how it can be used.

This woman is a self centered menace, pure and simple. She didn't like the law, so she just ignored it. When they sent her tickets, she just ignored them because she wanted to do her own thing. If she can ignore the speed limits, others should be able to ignore those annoying lights that interfere with the free flow of traffic (though I believe the same privacy concerns are raised anytime there is talk of installing red light cameras)......

"I can't drive 55"

However, privacy's the big issue for me. I don't want any cameras, either point toward the street, the sidewalk, or my house.
Sad part, the courts have stated a citizen has no expectation of privacy on a public street, public park, or any other public area.

However, South Carolina does NOT allow cameras for speed enforcment or red light enforcment unless manned by a certifited officer.

I have some bad news for you. Nowadays, pretty much every retail establishment records you when you are on the premises. Security cameras owned by businesses and private individuals record you when you are off the premises. And they can do whatever they like with their footage.

To get on photo radar, you actually have to break the law so you can opt out of being recorded. And since what is done with the information is public knowledge, there are limitations on how it can be used.

This woman is a self centered menace, pure and simple. She didn't like the law, so she just ignored it. When they sent her tickets, she just ignored them because she wanted to do her own thing. If she can ignore the speed limits, others should be able to ignore those annoying lights that interfere with the free flow of traffic (though I believe the same privacy concerns are raised anytime there is talk of installing red light cameras)......
I have no problem with private cameras aim on thier land. I want to go on private property, I have no problem with that. Its thier right to do this. However, i do have a problem with cameras on a public street. Also, these cameras may take your picture when you are not commiting a crime when:
a) Not calibrated properly, as i noted many people in CA had thier tickets thrown out because thier cameras took pictures on greens
b) Not all these cameras only take pictures of the offenders but people around them

Also, there's the whole slippery slope thing. How long until we gent used to these and want cameras to "protect" us from other crimes. Muggings? Lets put cameras on every street that film all the time. No thanks. Life's a risk, I'll take it rather than ahve my picture taken every minute,

Sad part, the courts have stated a citizen has no expectation of privacy on a public street, public park, or any other public area.
And the court is wrong. Plain and simple.

---
I do agree that this woman should probably not be driving (unless she drove by the same poorly calibrated camera 70 times).

And the court is wrong. Plain and simple.



Really? You have an expectation of privacy on a street in a major city? If it feels private to you, what kind of private things do you do in public. Funny, how we call it out in public not out in private...don't ya think?

Really? You have an expectation of privacy on a street in a major city? If it feels private to you, what kind of private things do you do in public. Funny, how we call it out in public not out in private...don't ya think?
Pick my nose, dammit! :P
I don't argue that my expectation of privacy is the same as in my bedroom, but I don't want the government to record me either.

:eek: How can she still have a licence? I thought that after a certain amount of points, your licence is suspended..? I thought it was 21, or maybe 24 points total. With 2-3 points per ticket, that should only be 10-12 tickets, tops.
Sorry, i forgot about that glorious godsend, the photo radar

Why the **** is this person still driving? What in the hell os wrong with the state of Arizona? How can they let her continue to drive with that many tickets in such a short period of time?

A long time ago I was caught doing 62 mph in a 30 mph zone in Des Moines. I was lucky I was not arrested, as speeding in Iowa is an arrestable offense. In Iowa the state can revoke your liscense for going 30 mph over the limit or for getting I think it is 3 speeding tickets in 3 months time. The state wanted to revoke my liscense. I hired an attorney & was put on drivers probation. The deal was if I got a speeding ticket in a years time I would have had my liscense revoked. I kept my nose clean & did get another speeding ticket until I moved to Sioux City.

Arizona has got to have something similar to Iowa in terms of traffic violation laws.

Hmmm, lets' see how she could get away with it for so long. First month the camera operators collect data. The next month they report to the city. The next month the city send her tickets. The next month she ignores them. The next month the city is tired of waiting for its money and gets active. Five months, no problem. In LA shuttle drivers could delay their ticket hearings 3-4-5 months by which time the officer is less likely to show at the hearing and the driver walks free. I delayed one ticket 3 months and got an offer from a clerk of pay half the fine and walk out with a clean record. I agree with others, many types of fines are designed to generate cash, period. Like punishing people who put coins in meters for others. The cities want that $15-$30 fine, not the quarter or two dropped in the box for a slow shopper.

In my town the traffic cameras did not make enough money to keep operating so they were allowed to break down. They stay there to fool out-of-towners.

Police said Cisneros said she threw her speeding tickets away because she thought nothing could happen to her if she didn't pay them

That's perfect American thinking. It's in the same category as these ones who drive around for miles and hours, trying to find a gas station that sells gas for less than the previous five stations they passed. They seem to forget the gas they are burning up by this action.