The guy was being dumb, but I don't really buy the argument that the conductor was doing it to save his life, or at least not specifically because he envisioned the protruding bit of metal hitting his head. I reason thusly:
The metal does not in fact protrude that far, or look like it would have caught the guys head, really. although the conductors leg is in front of it, his foot is further out than the metal. But my main issue is that I just don't think the driver was looking at it and thinking "this kid is going to get hit by the handle of that ladder!"
I don't really think that people who describe that bit of metal as a decapitation risk are correct: It doesn't look very sharp, although I accept it would be more of a risk than a guy's leg because of hardness. My intuitive reaction is that if the train was moving fast enough for that bit of metal to decapitate him, then it was moving fast enough for the conductors fuck off massive boot to represent a serious blunt force trauma risk.
But the biggest issue I have with saying that the conductor probably saved the kid's life is that with the way his boot hooks around the kid's head, and the way the kid bounces around afterwards, that seems to me to increase the risk that the kid is going to get knocked over and dragged under the train.
So I guess I don't have a problem believing that the conductor might have been trying to save the kid's life by trying to make sure he didn't do dumb things anymore, or even that he wanted to kick him away from the train, but if he did he might have miscalculated.
Of course it doesn't really matter. I only really made the post because no one had made any of these points I suppose. Maybe I'm way out.
Log in to comment