Statement: In a catastrophic accident at an unmanned railway level crossing, a bus collided with a running train, causing fifty deaths. Courses of Action: I. Immediately suspend the train driver. II. Prosecute the bus driver for negligence. III. Direct the railways to man (staff) all level crossings. Which course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
At unmanned level crossings, the road vehicle has a duty to stop, look, and proceed. The statement mentions an unmanned crossing and a bus–train collision, implying likely road-user negligence and a systemic safety gap (unmanned crossing).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Crossing was unmanned.
• Train had right of way; no evidence of train driver fault is provided.
• Large casualties signal severe road-side rule breach and infrastructure risk.

Concept / Approach:
Logical actions target the apparent negligent actor (bus driver) and the systemic fix (manning or eliminating unmanned crossings using gates/signals/ROBs). Punishing the train driver without evidence is illogical.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Global best practice replaces unmanned crossings with gates/automation or bridges; road-user enforcement runs in parallel.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Blaming rail crew irrespective of crossing type; ignoring infrastructure remedies.

Final Answer:
Only II and III follow.