Bus driver: Had the garbage truck not been exceeding the speed limit, it would not have collided with the bus I was d...

Jvjk on January 10, 2019

I have the same question ^

Shiyi-Zhang on February 20, 2019

Why is C incorrect?

Katherine on February 20, 2019

Hi @meisen, @Jvjk, and @Shiyi-Zhang!

Happy to help with this question.

First let’s take a look at the passage. The bus driver tells us a few key pieces of information: 1) the garbage truck was exceeding the speed limit 2) the bus driver was abiding all traffic regulations. They conclude from this information that the bus company should not reprimand them for the accident. This conclusion is not entirely obvious when you consider one other piece of information the bus driver told us - they could have avoided the accident had they reacted more quickly.

The question asks you to pick the answer choice that state a principle, which if true, would justify the bus driver’s reasoning.

Answer A says that when a driver who is violating a traffic regulation collides with a vehicle whose driver is not, the driver of the first vehicle is solely responsible for the accident. At first glance, this may seem like the right answer. However, look closely at the word choice. Is the bus driver’s conclusion that the driver of the garbage truck is solely responsible? Not quite. The bus driver says he should not be reprimanded by the bus company. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t carry some responsibility for the collision, only that it shouldn’t have negative consequences for him. In fact, he seems to be accepting some responsibility by admitting to the fact that he could have reacted more quickly. His conclusion is about what the bus company should or should not do, not identifying who is solely responsible.

Answer B is incorrect because the police report did not state that the collision was completely the fault of the other driver. According to the bus driver, the police report states that the bus driver was abiding by all traffic regulations. That is not the same as saying that the other driver was completely at fault. Because it misstates the facts presented by the bus driver, this choice is incorrect.

Answer C seems to state the negation of the principle relied upon by the bus driver. The answers says what should happen when a bus driver causes a collision by violating a traffic regulation. That is not the case here, where the bus driver was abiding all traffic regulations. This answer is tempting because you infer the negation, however this principle does not govern what the bus company should do when a collision occurs in which the bus driver is not in violation.

Answer D is incorrect. It says a company that employs bus drivers should reprimand their drivers only when they become involved in collisions that they reasonably could have been expected to avoid. The bus driver admitted that they could have avoided the collision had they reacted more quickly. Was this a collision they reasonably could have avoided? Maybe. If this principle was true, the bus company would likely reprimand the bus driver which is the opposite of the bus driver’s argument.

Finally, Answer E says that when a bus driver is involved in a collision they should not be reprimanded by the bus company if the collision did not result for the bus driver’s violating a traffic regulation. You can identify this as the correct answer for two reasons: 1) It goes to the bus driver’s specific conclusion - whether or not they should be reprimanded by the bus company; and 2) It applies to exactly these facts a collision involving bus driver and the reaction by the bus company (note how Answer A uses the more vague terminology of “vehicles”). If true, the principle would justify the reasoning of the bus driver. Therefore, it is the correct answer.

I hope this helps. Please reach out with other questions!