Statement — Five people are killed in an accident between a tempo and a running train at an unmanned level crossing.\nCourses of Action:\nI. The railway authority should immediately put permanent barricades on either side of the tracks at the crossing so that no vehicle can cross.\nII. The railway authority should immediately post an employee at the crossing round the clock to avoid such accidents.

Introduction / Context:
A tragic accident at an unmanned crossing raises immediate safety concerns. Viable courses of action should prevent recurrence without paralyzing local mobility or creating hazards elsewhere.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• An unmanned crossing saw a fatal collision.
• I: Install permanent barricades preventing any vehicle from crossing.
• II: Post staff at the crossing continuously.

Concept / Approach:
Immediate actions should be proportionate and feasible. While grade separation or closing may be long-term solutions, they require planning. Short-term human control (manning) is a standard interim step at high-risk points.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: Permanent barricades would block the roadway entirely, disrupting local access for residents, emergency vehicles, and commerce. Without alternate routes/bridges, this is impractical and may cause unintended harm.Evaluate II: Continuous staffing (or at least during peak hours until upgrades occur) provides immediate control—managing traffic, signaling, and coordinating with train schedules. It is a recognized safety intervention.Therefore, II follows as an immediate, reasonable measure; I does not.

Verification / Alternative check:
Typical safety roadmaps: short-term manning and enforcement; medium-term automation or interlocked gates; long-term elimination via over/under-bridges. The statement calls for immediate action, aligning with II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I follows: Blocks essential movement. Both follow: Endorses an extreme measure unnecessarily. Neither: Ignores a practical, established intervention. Either: Treats both as equally viable when they are not.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating 'no crossing' with 'safe' without considering essential access and emergency needs.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.