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)?
-
ANone follows
-
BOnly II follows
-
COnly I and II follow
-
DOnly II and III follow
-
EAll follow
Answer
Correct Answer: Only II and III follow
Explanation
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:
1) I: No basis to suspend the train driver in an unmanned crossing crash.2) II: Prosecution is appropriate where negligence is likely (speeding, ignoring warnings, not stopping).3) III: Manning/automating crossings (or grade separation) addresses the structural hazard.4) Hence, Only II and III follow.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:
• I: Unfounded.• Only II: Omits systemic prevention.• None / All: Either ignores fixes or includes an illogical step.Common Pitfalls:Blaming rail crew irrespective of crossing type; ignoring infrastructure remedies.
Final Answer:Only II and III follow.