Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Near the beginning of this thread, I think Greyhounds posed an interesting question as to whether or not horn blowing actually contributes anything to crossing safety.  It is a pertinent question because the crossings are protected by gates and flashing lights, so the horn blowing would seem to be largely redundant.  However, there are two circumstances where the horn signal is not redundant to the flashers and gates.  Those circumstances are when the signals fail to activate, or when a driver is distracted to the point of not seeing the flashers and lowered gate.   <o:p></o:p> The FRA report linked above by Schlimm seems to conclusively prove that the eliminating the horn signal from crossings does lead to a significant increase in crashes.  In fact, the increase is so great that I wonder if it can be totally accounted for by signal failure to activate or driver distraction.  I conclude that there is more to the explanation for the increase in crashes when horns are silenced.           <o:p></o:p> Traditionally, the total grade crossing event produces a warning consisting of flashing lights, lowered gates, train presence, headlights, and horn signal.  In communicating that overall warning to drivers, it is perhaps the horn signal that plays the greatest part.  Crossing signals often falsely activate.  So drivers may be accustomed to the experience of falsely activated signals characterized by a conspicuous lack of train horn sound.  Therefore, activated signals in a no-horn zone might be perceived as having less credibility when activated without the accompaniment of the train horn.  <o:p></o:p> So even though the horn is a largely redundant component of the overall warning, it may be the most powerful component in emotionally registering the warning with drivers.  So when you remove that horn component, it simply reduces the overall emotional strength of the warning.  And with a weakened warning, you get less compliance.  The lack of a horn signal might be a particularly potent in raising the danger because the horn signal has been taken away from a warning where drivers have grown accustomed to expecting it.   <o:p></o:p> People become conditioned to relying on warning systems and lowering their natural wariness in response.  That is why it is so dangerous when signals fail to activate.  Drivers expect no trains if the signals are inactivated.  I would postulate that a crossing with automatic flashers and gates that have failed to activate upon approach of a train is far more dangerous than a non-signalized crossing under the same circumstances.  <o:p></o:p> So when you remove the horn, you are talking away a big chunk of the warning experience that people are accustomed to.  The fact that signs are put up saying that no horns are blown may simply not be enough to make up the loss of natural wariness that drivers gave up for the horn signal.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag