news-record.com

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Suspect’s bond set too low in hit-and-run death case

Sunday, November 8, 2009

(Updated 3:00 am)

This is question for our judges and newly elected officials concerning the hit-and-run death of David Sherman: How does a driver charged with death by motor vehicle, hit and run, and driving with license revoked get a $5,000 unsecured bond? Even after a history of failure to appear in court on major driving violations.

The county and state need to stop taking driving violations so lightly. A habitual scofflaw allegedly has struck again; this time it was deadly. Fifteen hundred people die on North Carolina roads each year. Enough is enough. Set a precedent and prosecute to the maximum allowed by law.

Eric Hayes
Greensboro

What do you think?

11 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments on letters to the editor are only accepted for 24 hours.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

Yvonne

November 8, 2009 - 7:52 am EST

Heck, Eric, the counties and our state take drunk driving lightly so why would you think they would take traffic violations seriously? The drunk driver who hit me headon and almost killed me had six prior DWI's under his belt when he hit me. He had not even been to court for the last two at that time. He was within a quarter of a mile of a school and school was just letting out. I thank God it was me rather than wiping out a bunch of kids.

mamaboilermaker

November 8, 2009 - 8:28 am EST

I thought bond was supposed to be security to insure that people showed up in court. Failure to appear would seem to let a judge know that the person must be jailed to insure they come to court. Anyone know this judge's name yet?

elsoots

November 8, 2009 - 1:38 pm EST

A bond of $5000.00 all thay had to have was $500.00 to get of jail. thay should have to pay at least half and spent at least two {2} days in jail

igliigli

November 8, 2009 - 8:39 am EST

I agree the suspect's bond is far too low but I also ask when are the Greensboro police going to enforce traffic laws for drivers and cyclists? A bicycle is a great way to get around Greensboro, but I see very few cyclists obeying traffic law including the Greensboro Police bike patrol. Plus I rarely see drivers obeying traffic law when sharing the road with a cyclist.

rightwingnemesis

November 8, 2009 - 11:31 am EST

I applaud the construction of many bike lanes, but I'll be the first to admit, having a bicyclist on the busy streets of Greensboro is not a good thing and I'm afraid we will see more of these incidents. It is hard enough to drive with other automobiles sharing the road. Bicyclists can be very difficult to see.

With all that said, I think they should make the lady serve jail time as she illustrates the worst of driving.

Voice of Reason

November 8, 2009 - 11:55 am EST

Ever see a police car with lights on run a stop light to get to a hot call? Consider police bike units the same, they just don't have lights and sirens.

igliigli

November 8, 2009 - 12:47 pm EST

I have never seen a Greensboro Police bike patrol officer run a stop sign. But I have seen them ride the wrong way down one-way streets, ride on the sidewalk, or on the left side of a two-way road. That is the type of riding that makes the the bike movement unpredictable to drivers, pedestrians, and other cyclists and unpredictable movements lead to collisions. Bike paths decrease cyclists safety, not increase it. Drivers almost never check bike paths like they do for street lanes before making a turn or crossing an intersection. Also, if the bike path is shared with pedestrians, both pedestrians and cyclists make many sudden unpredictable moves and pedestrian-cyclist collision are far too common. For the most safety, bikes should be ridden only the road and follow all traffic laws and drivers need to learn to see them.

truth

November 9, 2009 - 10:14 am EST

Bike paths are great as they leave more room for vehicles and bicyclist. But some think that a bike lane means they don't have to follow the rules that the person in the car lane is following. Just last week, I saw a car (a good 30 feet in front of a bike) turn on their right turn signal and begin making a right turn. The bike, in the bike lane, continued forward and ran into the car. They charged the car for not yielding right-a-way to the bike. That's just stupid.

Lastvor

November 9, 2009 - 11:49 am EST

"They charged the car for not yielding right-a-way to the bike. That's just stupid."

When a vehicle turns right accross a bike lane (or turns right across a traffic lane), it must yield to the non-turning traffic, car or bike. The turning vehicle must be far enough ahead to clear the bike without the bike having to stop or slow down. Since the bike crashed into the turning car, the car didn't wasn't far enough ahead and should have yielded to the cyclist - hence the ticket. People who don't understand these rules should not be driving.

truth

November 9, 2009 - 2:25 pm EST

I'd have to say the rules are stupid and dangerous, then. To me, it's akin to a car passing me on the right shoulder when I'm making a right turn.

gsoagt

November 9, 2009 - 11:26 pm EST

If I am not mistaken, cars have mirrors. I think that this is one reason why. I am not a biker, but I respect them. They do not have 2000 lbs of metal protecting them. I wonder how many cars are parked in the bike lanes and how many leaves blocking them right now. We all need to find a little respect for others... bikers, motorists and pedestrians...