Decision-making – Courses of Action at an unmanned level crossing Statement: In one of the worst accidents at a railway level crossing, fifty people died when a passenger bus collided with a running train. Courses of Action: I. The train driver should be suspended immediately. II. The bus driver should be tried in court for negligence. III. The railway authority should be instructed to man all of its level crossings going forward.

Introduction / Context:
“Courses of Action” questions test whether proposed steps logically and prudently address the stated situation without assuming facts not given. Here, a catastrophic crash occurred at a railway level crossing when a bus hit a running train, killing fifty people. We must evaluate which actions are justified immediately on the given information.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A bus collided with a running train at a level crossing.
• A very high number of fatalities (around fifty) occurred.
• No further details are provided about signals, visibility, guards, or driver behavior.

Concept / Approach:
Valid actions should be systemic, preventive, and not presume unverified blame. Immediate punitive measures against specific individuals require inquiry. System-wide safety measures that reduce the probability of recurrence generally follow.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Best-practice safety management advocates engineering/administrative controls—manned crossings, barriers, alarms—especially after severe incidents. Individual blame must await inquiry.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I and II: Both assume negligence without evidence.
• II and III: II is unsubstantiated; III alone is justified.
• None follows: III clearly follows as a preventive step.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing the need for immediate preventive policy with premature punitive action; assuming fault without facts.

Final Answer:
Only III follows