Statement — Road accidents are increasing constantly, particularly in urban areas. Courses of Action — I. Urban Transport Authorities should impose stringent vehicle-maintenance norms. II. Traffic police should severely punish those who violate traffic rules.
-
Aif only I follows
-
BIf only II follows
-
Cif either I or II follows
-
Dif neither I nor II follows
-
Eif both I and II follow
Answer
Correct Answer: if both I and II follow
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Urban accident surges usually arise from multiple factors: poor vehicle condition, reckless driving, weak enforcement, and infrastructure stress. Effective action requires both safer machines and safer behavior.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Problem: rising urban road accidents.
- COA I: stricter maintenance norms (brakes, tires, lights, emissions, fitness tests).
- COA II: stricter enforcement and penalties for violations (speeding, red-light jumping, drunk driving, phone use).
Concept / Approach:COA I reduces mechanical failure risk and keeps unfit vehicles off roads. COA II changes driver incentives and behavior through deterrence. The problem is multifactorial; both supply-side (vehicle fitness) and demand-side (driver compliance) levers are necessary and complementary.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Enforce periodic fitness checks and roadside inspections (I).2) Intensify rule enforcement with technology (ANPR, e-challans), graded fines, and license points (II).3) Conclude: both follow to address distinct causal channels.Verification / Alternative check:Jurisdictions that improved both vehicle standards and enforcement saw accident declines; either action alone is insufficient.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either: one-sided response to a multi-cause issue.Neither: rejects obvious, standard safety levers.Common Pitfalls:Assuming infrastructure fixes alone suffice; enforcement and maintenance are core pillars.
Final Answer:Both I and II follow.