Hawaiian Shore's speed bumps

[Guest]

Likeable, I do believe that the section of Papio at the bottom of HSCA is owned by HSCA not the county. Even if HSCA owns it, its still the Hawaii highway that has been in use for hundreds of years. Interestingly the president also owns property down the government road, so she has a reason to use the highway as well. Hope neither she or her tenants ever needs emergency services down there, it could take an ambulance a couple minutes longer to get there and back...

[Guest]

Found some useful information:
I. Know Thy Enemy

Traffic obstruction advocates are local residents, usually few in number, who have decided to rid their street of unwanted traffic. They may use a collection of politically correct excuses, usually espousing a safety concern or the politically correct "it's for the children" argument. However, their overriding concern is most often "heavy traffic." Because they are local residents, they can attend public meetings and harangue elected officials, unlike motorists who simply pass through a community. The debate is usually one sided and the local officials eventually cave in to the demands for traffic obstruction installations. From their perspective, it's the easiest thing to do.

V. Arguments Against Traffic Obstruction Devices

Traffic obstruction devices:

A. Can increase response time for emergency vehicles. When seconds matter, having to slow to pass over speed bumps and humps or navigate narrow roadways can mean the difference between life and death, or the loss of one's home. The fact that some of these devices can seriously damage emergency vehicles and other vehicles along the roadway is also a concern.

B. Can increase congestion on other streets and create problems in other neighborhoods. If traffic obstruction devices divert traffic to other streets, they may compound congestion problems that already exist in those areas. If not successful in diverting traffic to other streets, traffic obstruction devices will compound congestion problems on the streets on which they are installed.

C. Will increase vehicle wear and tear, air pollution, and noise. Braking and accelerating in response to speed bumps, speed humps, stop signs, and traffic signals increases fuel consumption and emissions. This can contradict other efforts to reduce emissions and contribute to a community becoming or remaining a "non-attainment" air quality zone, thereby being subjected to federal mandates and restrictions.

D. Can increase street maintenance costs. Speed bumps and humps impede plowing and street cleaning equipment. Removable devices may soon be available, although they will require additional labor to install and remove them. Municipalities must maintain and repair stop signs and traffic signals, at taxpayer expense, of course.

E. Increase a community's liability for accidents attributed to such devices.

F. May cause physical discomfort, even pain, for disabled persons or persons with physical ailments. Being jolted or jostled by speed bumps and humps can be painful for persons with injuries or painful illnesses.

G. Create neighborhood friction. Not all persons (not even most persons) on a given street will appreciate having to run an obstacle course every time they drive to or from home. Some traffic obstruction opponents blow their horns or yell verbal insults when having to slow or stop for speed bumps or humps. Frequently, the response to unnecessary stop signs is to ignore them.

Some more information:
http://www.motorists.org/traffic-calming/problems

very interesting:
Members of city councils and transportation divisions often portray delay to emergency response by calming devices as simply a tradeoff for increased safety from speeding cars. They avoid making the analysis which shows which risk is greater. Ronald Bowman, a scientist in Boulder, Colorado developed an analysis to compare these risks. The results show that even minor delay to emergency response by calming devices imposes far greater risk on the community than vehicles, speeding or not. The result of Bowman's analysis, showed a risk factor of 85 - 1 from an additional one minute of delay (predicted to result from the installation of all the devices proposed for the City of Boulder at the time) before one life might be saved by the devices -- if it can be shown that the devices do save lives. Bowman's analysis, based on the curve of survivability for victims of cardiac arrest and severe trauma (AHA) has been verified by a professional mathematician.

Maybe we should look in the minutes to see what discussion took place about the bumps. I am sure ALL the negative consequences were discussed, including the possible life harming implications. /S

[cwaters]

You have just described Government Beach Rd. in Wa'a Wa'a. It is four miles of potholes. Last weekend my husband had to go to the hospital my ambulance, the drivers were disgusted with the road and the ride was very hard on my husband.

[candyman]

@ afwjam - nice research, thanks. I am afraid looking at the minutes will not reveal the discussion that transpired regarding the speed humps but rather the motion, second and vote results. The DVD of the meeting may be more helpful to you and can be borrowed for your personal home viewing at the HSCA offices on Honu Street. Continued strength for success in your quest for fairness and benefits for all of the Membership of HSCA. Demand respect and settle for accountability!

[critterlover]

@afwjam -- AMEN! I have been saying this for years here and on many different forums. The county we moved here from stopped permitting the use of speed bumps due to increased liability and because at the time they were recipients of federal tax dollars and apparently there was some analysis done to give the feds some sense of caution and pause with regards the use of speed bumps. Don't know if after all of this time and change of culture if it is still that way.

At the August or September meeting one of my neighbors stood up and asked if anyone had discussed the installation with first responders. After a quick discussion between the Board members they included that prerequisite as essential to their forward going plans. The report back the next month when they decided to go ahead and install was that the first responders merely requested notification of the installation. I would imagine the police if there is an emergency will traverse Puna Coastal and Kuna to head into Waa Waa. I would think the ambulance would do that as well. I don't know if the fire rigs can negotiate that sort of hard right turn from Kuna on to Old Govt Road. They may have to go bump in the night x3.

To be fair, they have to negotiate far less optimal driving conditions on many of the subdivision roads which are not paved and not maintained. As I said before, listening to the dispatchers and the responders discussing how to arrive at a scene is replete with the nightmarish conditions they encounter. That having been said, should someone deliberately put down obstacles in their path? Many municipalities a few years back said NEGATIVE.

@Candyman, though it has been the practice for years to allow members to go and check out DVD's for personal viewing from the business office allegedly there is a new policy that states NO CAN any longer. I have not personally tested the waters to verify this. Time will tell.

On the reversing the speed humps issue, just my humble opinion, Membership does have limitations. I think the only way in which one might be able to test this is to find out from a legal perspective if the Board of Directors, under the auspices of management and maintenance, can allow someone to build an obstruction on community property such as speed humps which directly benefits the immediate resident/s but not the community. And to make this HSCA centric, NO OFFENSE to the community who uses that road, this is a private street owned by the community. I suspect there could be a case made for the long term unobstructed use of it as a through way for Waa Waa residents in the larger view and as such Waa Waa residents may have a case for something extreme like Adverse Possession. Perhaps a quick trip to the County Engineering Division to see if that is the place to start -- could give someone direction. It would be something someone could do research into and decide if there was a case. But until that is litigated it is a private road and belongs to Hawaiian Shores Community Association. The folks who own that road are the ones who must determine the best course of action. Myself, I am not personally affected by the installation but understand the issues and am willing to listen to a discussion at any meeting, infrastructure or Board. Infrastructure meetings have been cancelled until the first of the year but with the caveat if something comes up they will call a meeting. The chair of that committee is the VP. To me, that would be a logical place to start. As I said, initially, during the discussion of the motion to allow installation he began to regret his part in approving the speed humps.

Question Authority!