Noise of Railroads - More on Suppression Methods

[schlimm]

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/nationwidestudy.pdf

[Anonymous]

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. 

 

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.         

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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.

[jeffhergert]

Bucyrus

zugmann:

But I've seen more than one car that was about to blast past activated warning signals stop because my hogger laid on the horn nice and heavy.  So yeah, it does help at times.

How do you know he was about to pass active warning signals?  And if he was, how do you know it was the horn, as opposed to the signal, that made him stop? 

 

I contend that sounding the horn has no effect on drivers who want to beat the train, but it does prevent crashes by waking up drivers who have fallen asleep, or are otherwise distracted.  In the incident you cite, perhaps the driver was distracted and the horn got his attention.  Why are you assuming instead that the driver intended to run the signal, but the horn changed his mind?

Since I wasn't there, I can't say who is right.  But I do agree with Zug that it appears sounding the horn makes some people think twice about running gates and/or lights.  

I say that because approaching crossings sometimes you will see the lights start, gates go down and cars speed up.  They certainly know what's going on ahead of them.  For some reason though, some do change their minds and stop.  Maybe it's just coincedence, but it sure seems to correspond to the horn being sounded.

Jeff  

 

[zardoz]

jeffhergert

Since I wasn't there, I can't say who is right.  But I do agree with Zug that it appears sounding the horn makes some people think twice about running gates and/or lights.  

I say that because approaching crossings sometimes you will see the lights start, gates go down and cars speed up.  They certainly know what's going on ahead of them.  For some reason though, some do change their minds and stop.  Maybe it's just coincedence, but it sure seems to correspond to the horn being sounded.

Jeff  

 

It always seemed to me that sounding the horn had equal chance of either result--some people speed up upon hearing it, and other back off; my guess is that it is more to do with the individual's personality. But as long as they do one or the other (and not just freeze in place), then sounding the horn would seem to have mostly beneficial results.

[Semper Vaporo]

After reading that FRA report on the effect of horn bans that schlimm referred to above (and I will repeat here!)

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/nationwidestudy.pdf

I can't see how anyone can claim that horns do no good, or that quiet zones are good.

PLEASE, everyone... GO READ THAT REPORT!  What an eye-opener! 

[Vegas X Train]

What do you think of the new DOW commercial with all the passengers on the outside of the train?

[Anonymous]

zugmann

But I've seen more than one car that was about to blast past activated warning signals stop because my hogger laid on the horn nice and heavy.  So yeah, it does help at times.

Actually, after reading the FRA report, I now believe that the horn plays a larger role than what I first thought. 

 

I was thinking that the warning system (including the horn) makes drivers aware of the hazard, but if they are made aware of the hazard and decide to ignore it, there is nothing more that the warning can contribute.  So I said, “I contend that sounding the horn has no effect on drivers who want to beat the train,…”

 

While that is true as long as the driver remains committed to the decision to ignore the hazard, the warning may indeed enlarge the perception of the danger, and thereby influence the driver to reverse his or her decision to ignore it.  So from a practical perspective, I agree with you that the horn can have an effect on drivers who want to beat the train by causing them to change their mind.