Separating Carriages: Solving the Problem?

In crisis situations, people tend to seek quick answers. Following the train accident in Bekasi, the public not only mourned but also promptly offered various solutions.

One proposal that emerged was the idea of separating carriages, even going as far as designating the front or rear sections of the train for men.

At first glance, this idea seems simple. However, the question is: does a solution like this truly touch the root of the problem?

The accident that occurred on 27 April 2026 in Bekasi was no minor incident.

The event involved the long-distance Argo Bromo Anggrek train and the KRL Commuter Line, resulting in a severe collision at Bekasi Timur Station.

At least 15 people died and 84 others were injured in the incident.

This fact then triggered various public reactions. One of them was the idea of rearranging passenger positions based on gender for safety reasons.

However, this is where the issue becomes complex.

In public policy studies, there is a term known as “policy by panic”—policies born from panic. The solutions that emerge are often quick, seemingly logical, but not necessarily correct.

The proposal to separate male carriages at the front or rear, if traced, stems from a simple assumption: that certain positions are riskier than others.

Yet, in the Bekasi accident, the impacted carriage positions were not solely due to “who was inside them”, but because of the technical dynamics of the collision, including track factors, signals, and prior disruptions at level crossings.

In other words, the main problem is not with the passenger composition, but with the system.

Separating carriages based on gender might provide psychological reassurance. However, a sense of safety does not always align with actual security.

In the context of transportation, safety is determined by many factors: signalling systems, train traffic management, infrastructure conditions, and discipline at level crossings.