Are train horns improving road safety? Road users' perspective.

Train horns are used as a control at railway level crossing for safety. Despite their wide use, limited information exists on their actual safety benefits. This study used focus groups with road users to understand their perceptions of the usefulness of train horns. This study showed that the message heard by road users is very simple and contrasts with the amount of information train drivers want to convey. The perceived benefits of the train horn were: (i) an additional layer of protection at active crossings; (ii) an important safety feature at rural/passive crossings; (iii) an increased safety benefit for vulnerable road users; and (iv) a greater safety benefit at night. The disadvantages of the use of train horns were perceived as outweighed by the safety benefits. This study highlights that reducing train horns, if safe to do so, could face resistance from road users and the rail industry.

The safety benefits of train horns at railway level crossings are not well-researched, despite their negative effects on health. This focus group study investigated road users' perceptions of the usefulness of train horns. It showed that reducing the use of train horns could face resistance from road users.

Generic and sport-specific reactive agility tests assess different qualities in court-based team sport athletes.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons between reactive agility tests incorporating generic and sport-specific stimuli have been performed only in field-based team sports. The aim of this study was to compare generic (light-based) and sport-specific (live opponent) reactive agility tests in court-based team sport athletes. METHODS: Twelve semi-professional male basketball players (age: 25.9±6.7 yr; stature: 188.9±7.9 cm; body mass: 97.4±16.1 kg; predicted maximal oxygen uptake: 49.5±5.3 mL/kg 7 min) completed multiple trials of a Reactive Agility Test containing light-based (RAT-Light) and opponent-based stimuli (RAT-Opponent). Multiple outcome measures were collected during the RAT-Light (agility time and total time) and RAT-Opponent (decision time and total time). RESULTS: Mean performance times during the RAT-Light (2.233±0.224 s) were significantly (P<0.001) slower than during the RAT-Opponent (1.726±0.178 s). Further, a small relationship was observed between RAT-Light agility time and RAT-Opponent decision time (r10=0.20), while a trivial relationship was apparent between total performance times across tests (r10=0.02). Low commonality was observed between comparable measures across tests (R2=0-4%). CONCLUSIONS: Reactive agility tests containing light-based and live opponent stimuli appear to measure different qualities in court-based team sport athletes. Court-based team sport coaches and conditioning professionals should not use generic and sport-specific reactive agility tests interchangeably during athlete assessments.

Gender-specific activity demands experienced during semiprofessional basketball game play.

PURPOSE: To compare game activity demands between female and male semiprofessional basketball players. METHODS: Female (n=12) and male (n=12) semiprofessional basketball players were monitored across 3 competitive games. Time-motion-analysis procedures quantified player activity into predefined movement categories across backcourt (BC) and frontcourt (FC) positions. Activity frequencies, durations, and distances were calculated relative to live playing time (min). Work:rest ratios were also calculated using the video data. Game activity was compared between genders for each playing position and all players. RESULTS: Female players performed at greater running work-rates than male players (45.7±1.4 vs. 42.1±1.7 m/min, P=.05), while male players performed more dribbling than female players (2.5±0.3 vs. 3.0±0.2 s/min; 8.4±0.3 vs. 9.7±0.7 m/min, P=.05). Positional analyses revealed that female BC players performed more low-intensity shuffling (P=.04) and jumping (P=.05), as well as longer (P=.04) jogging durations, than male BC players. Female FC players executed more upper-body activity (P=.03) and larger work:rest ratios (P<.001) than male FC players. No significant gender differences were observed in the overall intermittent demands, distance traveled, high-intensity shuffling activity, and sprinting requirements during game play. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that gender-specific running and dribbling differences might exist in semiprofessional basketball. Furthermore, position-specific variations between female and male basketball players should be considered. These data may prove useful in the development of gender-specific conditioning plans relative to playing position in basketball.