On 08/08/2018 19:20, TMS320 wrote:

On 08/08/18 16:28, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2018 15:24, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/08/18 15:27, JNugent wrote:

Since horns are rarely, if ever, used for their legallt-intended
purpose, my view - for a long time - has been that rather than being
a C&U requirement, they should be banned except for the ones used on
official emergency vehicles.

I once used horn to try and stop a van driver from reversing
into me. The HC seems to allow that.

Alerting him to your presence is the specific purpose of a horn; that
much has been said already.

It is a special case when stationary.

Using the horn for its proper purpose is a very rare occurrence.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're just supposed to stop
in order to avoid a collision.

The original HC in the 1930's said "sounding your horn does not give
you right of way or absolve you from the duty of taking every
precaution to avoid an accident". Unfortunately this seems to have
disappeared from the modern version. "warn[ing] other road users of
your presence" is not particularly helpful.

There's still the law about driving without due care and attention
and/or without due consideration for other road users.

The requirement that a horn should not be used when stationary
seems a bit strange because (offhand) I can't think of a circumstance
nowadays where the horn could be useful while moving. Perhaps the
requirement came from the days when motor vehicles were hard to
control and there were few of them so people were not used to their
presence. Now, people use roads with the full expectation that
something big and fast operated by a psychopath is round the next
corner. Also, bulb air horns were more acceptable than the nasty
electric objects fitted today.

The obvious use whilst moving would be when approaching ths "summit"
of a hump-backed bridge or a sharp bend.

Perhaps you mean something like this? It is is harder seen from a
driver's perspective than from a high mounted camera. No need. Adjust
speed according to what can be seen.

https://goo.gl/maps/9MSMX69BxzM2

Not hump-backed enough to need it. You can easily see traffic
approaching from the opposite direction, even if driving a Triumph Spitfire.

In order for the horn-sounding to be even semi-valid, the bridge really
needs to be a narrowing of the road as well (which the Italian one was).

https://goo.gl/maps/R48YMSxzjQk

That one is narrow, but you can still see the oncoming traffic. Sounding
the horn would not serve a useful purpose.

Incidentally, the bridge has a 2t mgw limit so several drivers shown
here are breaking the rules - plus many others plus a council official
with a Range Rover that knows full well.

There's no sign saying so. Is this an older Google photo?

A multi-storey car-park near here had a down-ramp with a give way line
at the bottom of it, with the posibility of traffic approaching from
the left. A sign on the wall said "Sound Horn". I never did.

Weird.

Exactly. I bet someone thought it was clever, though.

There were houses near the location and the occupants were as entitled
to reasonable efforts to keep down noise as anyone else is.

Well done you.

Likewise, an Italian friend used to sound his car horn on a
hump-backed bridge near his village. But the bridge had a house
adjacent to it. He would never listen to my remonstrations; I gained
the impression that he...

[...revelled in it.]

Sorry, missed that out last time.

On a bicycle, the voice can be useful because the approach behind
pedestrians or horse riders is otherwise silent. When there is
insufficient clearance to get past without having their awareness I
always slow to match their speed before announcing my presence.

That sort of sounds OK and in keeping with the HC instructions on
motor-vehicle horns.

Except motor vehicles already make so much noise that they don't require
embellishment. Making pedestrians aware of my presence when I approach
behind them isn't needed in the car as it is on the bike.

I still believe that it would be better if car-horns were simply
banned. The nuisance caused by mis-use far outweighs the weight of the
odd anecdotal case for their use for safety-related purposes.

Indeed. At most, such "safety-related purposes" could only cover small
insurance claims and can't possibly have effect on personal safety.

If the horn was not so unpleasant, the administrators that defined the
90dbA standard understood physics and the pad on the steering wheel was
force sensing to allow the driver to add expression it might be more
acceptable.

Is that the C&U standard? I never knew that.