One explanation could be that the noise exposure contrast in our study was less for road traffic noise than for aircraft noise as a result of our selection focusing on subjects with high and low exposure to aircraft noise.
"Normal" through trains cause less annoyance than road traffic and aircraft, the noise levels being equal.
It has been found in European studies that railway noise causes less annoyance than road traffic noise.
A number of studies have shown that rail traffic noise is less disturbing than road traffic noise at the same average level.
The hypothesis, that gypsies would be less bothered by road traffic noise than the settled population, was based on consideration of the importance of the road in gypsies' lives, and on a small pilot study.
In the pooled analyses, markers of inflammation were not associated with PM2.5 or PM10, the spatial variation of which is less strongly associated with road traffic than that of NOx (Eeftens et al. 2012b).
Railway noise is less annoying than aircraft or road traffic noise of equivalent noise level, at least above 50 to 65Leq.
The vehicles approaching from the minor road pay less attention to the major road traffic and do not wait for a suitable gap to clear the intersection safely.
However, exposure estimates for railway noise, which was classified in 5-dB categories for levels ≥ 60 dB only, were less accurate than estimates of road traffic noise exposure.
This review suggests that, despite increasing awareness of the importance of addressing road safety among stakeholders in less resourced Pacific Island countries, road traffic injuries have not been a research priority with little relevant current evidence from the region to inform policy.
In middle- and lower-income countries, injury studies have focused on road traffic injuries and less attention has been given to other types of injuries.
