Does the railway industry recognise acoustic shock disorder (ASD)

[jdxn]

A train horn being sounded should not be a 'surprise' to a shunter. You would expect a driver to sound a horn if required at any time. Someone else may have decided to walk across the tracks for example. In my view there would be no case there.
If the working environment allows the shunter to exposed to an unacceptable level of sound because the horn is too loud/the shunter is too close etc, then an employer may be in breach for allowing such a situation to occur if all the procedures were followed correctly by the employees

As others have said, the union lawyer is the person to speak to. IMHO one of the most valuable reasons for being a member.

 

[w1bbl3]

One issue with a shunter roles is the very high RIDDOR reported incident count if I recall the figure is roughly double that of track workers and amongst the highest rate across all industries. I can see horn too loud / unexpected being somewhat difficult when the general incident statistics indicate awareness being a problem.

All per all the previous advice best to see professional help from the union lawyer.

 

[farleigh]

A shunter is surprised that a train sounds its horn

 

[Jonfun]

You can reduce the risk of this simply by adopting good practice - station PA systems should be correctly set up (as discussed in tbe Blackfriars thread) in order to ensure, if nothing else, that the equipment itself doesn't get damaged by sudden spikes in volume. Train horn issues can be mitigated by using the soft tone on depot and keeping use to the minimum required by the rules, and proper training on the shunter's part.
If something is so dangerously loud it causes hearing loss or severe shock then there are probably other, more pressing, issues at play too.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If something is so dangerously loud it causes hearing loss or severe shock then there are probably other, more pressing, issues at play too.

Indeed; this person has pre-existing anxiety issues along with a reduced tolerance to loud sounds and tinnitus. I will ask him to contact his union representative and occupational health. He will need referral to psychiatry as well.

 

[LAX54]

Would not have thought a TOC member would have any claim at all ? one would ask why he joined the Railway ? and did he tell them at the interview that he could not handle a train sounding a horn ? !

 

[DarloRich]

asking in ignorance: Is acoustic shock disorder a real thing?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

From some brief reading on Acoustic Shock Disorder, it does seem to refer specifically to effects suffered by those in the telecoms industry, so perhaps whatever unpleasant effects your friend is dealing with shouldn't be referred to using this term.

It sounds to me he will definitely need to discuss his "pre-existing anxiety issues along with a reduced tolerance to loud sounds and tinnitus." with the company/union rep etc. but to me (from a purely common-sense point of view) these pre-existing issues would seem to make him unsuitable for the role!

 

[pedr]

Acoustic shock doesn’t seem to be anything to do with (emotional) distress or a nervous reaction to an unexpected noise - it appears to be about damage to the ears, and hearing mechanisms, due to sudden loud noise. I imagine that even expected, but sudden, loud noises could cause it. It might be similar to a very high intensity floodlight being switched on while someone very close was looking directly at it - which would be likely to cause visual impairment.

How places of work which inevitably create noise which could cause these effects have to deal with them (or accept that the costs of compensating workers who suffer the effects are part of the operating costs) may be affected by this judgment about acoustic shock suffered by an orchestra musician: https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/03/2...-orchestra-royal-opera-ruling-trnd/index.html

(Edit): Of course it isn’t clear if the situations described by the OP are actually acoustic shock as discussed in that article, or some other condition potentially caused by the noise event.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

asking in ignorance: Is acoustic shock disorder a real thing?

Yes it is very real but not well recognised (yet). It is different to occupational noise exposure which is a gradual occurrance as opposed to a sudden, unexpected sound such as a train horn, explosion, firework etc.

 

[coppercapped]

Yes it is very real but not well recognised (yet). It is different to occupational noise exposure which is a gradual occurrance as opposed to a sudden, unexpected sound such as a train horn, explosion, firework etc.

Has the condition been 'recognised' in members, or ex-members, of artillery regiments?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Has the condition been 'recognised' in members, or ex-members, of artillery regiments?

This is occupational noise trauma and is expected - and recognised. It is now recognised in call centres

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Acoustic shock doesn’t seem to be anything to do with (emotional) distress or a nervous reaction to an unexpected noise - it appears to be about damage to the ears, and hearing mechanisms, due to sudden loud noise.

It has everything to do with emotional distress, the literature suggests it can be akin to PTSD

 

[Bromley boy]

Indeed; this person has pre-existing anxiety issues along with a reduced tolerance to loud sounds and tinnitus. I will ask him to contact his union representative and occupational health. He will need referral to psychiatry as well.

With respect, rather than casting around for someone to sue, this person would be better advised to seek a different career where they are unlikely to be exposed to train horns and other loud noises.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

How places of work which inevitably create noise which could cause these effects have to deal with them (or accept that the costs of compensating workers who suffer the effects are part of the operating costs) may be affected by this judgment about acoustic shock suffered by an orchestra musician: https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/03/2...-orchestra-royal-opera-ruling-trnd/index.html.

I read this a while ago and clearly the ruling found in favour of the musician and places like the Royal Opera House will now have to put reasonable measures in place to ensure this does not happen again

 

[swaldman]

Whether the railways "recognise" something isn't relevant to anything, AFAICS. They have a duty of care, they don't get to pick and choose what they care about.

As to whether the courts recognise it, the answer is yes, because there was a well-publicised case recently of a musician winning substantial damages due to damage to his hearing in an orchestra pit. This is not the same as "I was traumatised by a loud noise", it's "the sudden loud noise did permanent damage to my hearing". I don't know whether that would be achieved by a train horn; I mean I'm sure it would if one put one's ear up to it... we're talking 130-140dB, which is standing-near-a-jet-engine levels of noise. But this is measurable, and thus not really a matter for debate.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

With respect, rather than casting around for someone to sue, this person would be better advised to seek a different career where they are unlikely to be exposed to train horns and other loud noises.

Indeed, I couldn't agree more but he might take early retirement

 

[Bertie the bus]

Perhaps I’m being cynical but I wonder how much of this, especially the willingness to sue, has to do with this from just over 1 week ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43571144

A viola player who suffered a life-changing hearing injury at a rehearsal of Wagner's Die Walkure in 2012 has won a landmark High Court judgment against the Royal Opera House (ROH).
The case won by Chris Goldscheider has huge implications for the industry and the health and safety of musicians.
It is the first time a judge has scrutinised the music industry's legal obligations towards musicians' hearing.
The ROH said it was "surprised and disappointed" by the judgment.
It is also the first time 'acoustic shock' has been recognised as a condition which can be compensated by a court.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

The two are totally unconnected. I don't know how loud train horns mounted at coupler level are at full blast

 

[daikilo]

Unfortunately, that finding does rather put the cat among the pigeons as it seems to suggest that instantaneous sound level is to be considered as important as prolonged levels (such as with earphones). I guess the ROH was found guilty as they were the person's employer at the time and it is deemed thay could have checked what the level would be.

I know that train horns must produce a certain minimum level of sound at a specified distance but I don't know if there is a maximum.

If I were still in the railway industry, I would sit up, because the very fact that horns are used in close proximity to staff (and customers) maybe is relevant. Presumably the musician was actually aware of the music score and that his claim was actually that his working environment did not suitably protect his hearing.

 

[coppercapped]

This is occupational noise trauma and is expected - and recognised. It is now recognised in call centres

In which case I would suggest that the sufferer's first port of call should be with his or her GP rather than a solicitor or a trades union. From your description it seems that the intention is more to get compensation rather than treatment.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

In which case I would suggest that the sufferer's first port of call should be with his or her GP rather than a solicitor or a trades union. From your description it seems that the intention is more to get compensation rather than treatment.

Yes that's the impression I get. I can only treat him and whatever beef he has with his (former) employer; I am staying well out of it. I was just interested - hence my original question

 

[mpthomson]

asking in ignorance: Is acoustic shock disorder a real thing?

Simple answer, technically no it isn’t. It doesn’t have an ICD 10 or DSM diagnostic code. HOWEVER it’s a descriptor of a number of symptoms that some may experience after a loud noise incident. There is however a condition known as tonic tensor tympani syndrome that may be triggered by Acoustic shock. Acoustic shock is a real thing but tends to be temporary in the main, though for some it develops into tinnitus or hearing loss, which certainly can cause psychological symptoms as well.

 

[DarloRich]

Simple answer, technically no it isn’t. It doesn’t have an ICD 10 or DSM diagnostic code. HOWEVER it’s a descriptor of a number of symptoms that some may experience after a loud noise incident. There is however a condition known as tonic tensor tympani syndrome that may be triggered by Acoustic shock. Acoustic shock is a real thing but tends to be temporary in the main, though for some it develops into tinnitus or hearing loss, which certainly can cause psychological symptoms as well.

thanks.

 

[nottsnurse]

Has the condition been 'recognised' in members, or ex-members, of artillery regiments?

If anything they're likely to have been wearing appropriate hearing protection and expecting a loud noise. Its those of us who have spent our time 'down range' who are more likely to experience sudden, unexpected noises.

As for this thread's main topic, speaking with an audiology colleague earlier his opinion is that the drive to 'recognise' ASD is being pushed far more by the legal community than the medical one. Make of that what you will.

 

[robbeech]

With the risk of getting patronising comments from people with immeasurably small knowledge on the subject after i take the time to explain things that relate closely to my career.......

There are differences between prolonged noise and sudden noises for all people. I would simply not believe someone who said a loud noise hasn't made them jump at some point and i would find it difficult to believe anyone who said that a particular loud and immediate noise hasn't made their ears ring for a short period of time. So the physical side of this exists. What we see here is a more psychological issue that is triggered by these physical things. Noise in the work place is a hot topic, and has been for a number of years, there are many claims for hearing loss in the work place that go through each year and employers have to pay out heavily on this. It is in their interest from a financial point of view to minimise further risks. However, there are always exemptions and in some industries, audible warnings for safety critical systems are one of them. I have no documentation relating to the railway for this (though i'd be interested to read some if anyone has a link) but it is entirely possible that a safety critical audible warning like the horn on a train will be exempt. My thinking for this is based on experience of the figures. For something to be a given volume level at a given distance it has to be louder when you are closer to it, that is physics for you. Each time we double the distance we halve the volume. In order to be loud enough to warn someone at a suitable distance it will always be well above the threshold for people in the immediate area. There is no way around this (we can combat it to a certain extent with output device design but in the grand scheme of things it is hardly helpful on the scale required here). Reducing volume at source means people at distance may not hear and may be hit by a train. This is never acceptable.
Have you ever walked through a big hallway with lots of glass windows and hard surfaces in a building like a school with the fire alarm sounding? pretty loud and horrific isn't it. We aren't going to turn those down so that we can safely be in the room with them for a given length of time, and i would rather imagine that train horns fall under the same category.
So as i see this, this thread is partially about the noise levels, as they are high, but mostly about the sudden nature of the high levels of noise. I'm afraid whilst i sympathise with people that suffer with hearing issues, both physical and mental, there has to be a line drawn somewhere that states that this level of noise is within the limits expected of someone doing this job and as such the railway cannot be held responsible for a condition that a person has found themselves with.
However, if they feel that as a result of exposure to NON SAFETY CRITICAL noise levels in the work place has been at a level higher than acceptable and they have developed hearing loss from it then they could of course have reason to claim. There may also be a possibility that this hearing loss has contributed towards the development of this condition in which case they may have a further claim here. Unfortunately that would require a very specialist solicitor, and very specialist medical personnel all of which would have to be paid for. It is unlikely that the railway is going to entertain the idea of paying for this so it would be down to the individual to decide whether the risk is worth it. It is unlikely you'll find a "no win no fee" style legal team for a case like this.

 

[delt1c]

@Andrew NTH

I am not implying anything. Two people have asked me if they have a legitimate case and I do not know the answer - hence my question to this forum

If you dont have the answer , how do you expect to get a clear answer here. What you are asking is opinions. If you want a definative answer then you have to pay a legal expert to get a legally based answer which is based on law.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If you dont have the answer , how do you expect to get a clear answer here. What you are asking is opinions. If you want a definative answer then you have to pay a legal expert to get a legally based answer which is based on law.

I don't "expect" anything. I originally asked the question in the "hope" that some very knowledgeable staff in the industry "might" offer up some insight.

I am quite aware that one has to pay for a legal expert but what's the harm in asking?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If I understand your question correctly, and then the explanation you have given to others' requests for clarification, then it seems that you've asked the wrong question!
It is immaterial whether a Railway Company 'recognises' a particular syndrome; what is material is whether injury has been sustained as a consequence of the willful act and/or the negligence of another party, was not reasonably foreseeable and avoidable by the injured person, whether the damaging or negligent party had excercied a proportionate duty of care, whether that injury incurs a financial loss (such as care costs, medical treatment, past present or future loss of income etc.), whether the injury incurs a loss of faculties or abilities, and whether, on the balance of probabilities, disagreements between the two parties are likely to favour the arguments of the injured party. The law will 'recognise' a cause of damages whether or not there is a technical name for the syndrome, as long as the loss is demonstrable.

The other party who may well be required to 'recognise' the syndrome is an Insurance Company. If the injured party had healthcare or injury cover, perhaps as an element of a Life Insurance Policy, then the conditions attached to the policy will list the forms of trauma which their policy covers, and up to what maximum amount of compensation is payable for each.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Thank you @ DaveNewcastle