Suicide barrier for Golden Gate Bridge? Public debate promises to be emotional

Very interesting. Should suicide barriers be installed, or should people be allowed to end their life if they want?



Some say Golden Gate suicide barriers would mar an icon,
and people would find another way to end their lives.
But families of suicides say they would save lives.





By Marjie Lundstrom - mlundstrom@sacbee.com

Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, July 21, 2008
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1

SAN FRANCISCO – Olivia Crowther left her London flat last month to become a statistic in San Francisco. The 23-year-old college graduate surfed suicide Web sites, bought a plane ticket for California and, at 9:24 a.m. on June 25, leapt to her death off the Golden Gate Bridge, at light pole No. 105.

Her body was retrieved from the water nine minutes later – one of the latest among at least 1,300 suicides at the majestic span since it opened in 1937.

The debate over what to do about the deaths goes back nearly as far, though the pace is quickening this week with public meetings over proposals to prevent such tragedies.

Will Bay Area residents favor costly suicide barriers on one of the world's most famous bridges? Will they want to raise the existing 4-foot rail? Hang nets? Or do nothing?

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1096531.html

Four designs for suicide barriers would extend or replace the 4-foot-high handrail, using either vertical or horizontal steel rods or cables. Another option would be to construct horizontal nets below the sidewalk. Each plan would cost from $40 million to $50 million. For viewing and comment: www.goldengate.org


The Golden Gate Bridge has the dubious distinction of being the world's No. 1 suicide magnet. But most people who jump come from the six counties closest to the bridge, statistics show. Supporters of suicide barriers often cite a 1978 study that found that 94 percent of people sidelined from suicide were still alive 26 years later or had died of natural causes.


Nets 20 feet below sidewalk


Vertical barrier with transparent panel


Horizontal barrier Illustrations from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District /

People that are determined to kill themselves are going to find a way to do it. Putting a barrier up would have the same effect as making car windows that roll down when the carbon monoxide level gets too high.

but what if it saves even one, causes even on to reconsider or change their mind? Would it be worth it then? Would it be worth it if that were somebody you knew or loved?

I read an article within the last few weeks - NY times magazine <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all> - that states that suicides are often spur of the moment decisions. If making it difficult, or even inconvenient, the rate goes down.

Read the whole thing - especially about the British Coal Gas story.

...In September 2000, Kevin Hines, a 19-year-old college student suffering from bipolar disorder, leapt from the Golden Gate. Along with Ken Baldwin, he is one of only 29 known survivors of the fall. Today Hines controls his bipolar disorder with medication and a strictly controlled regimen of diet and exercise and sleep, even while maintaining a frenetic schedule. Having recently married, he is frequently on the road lecturing for a suicide-prevention network while simultaneously working toward a psychology degree. One of his most intense ambitions, though, is to finally see a suicide barrier erected on the Golden Gate.

“I’ll tell you what I can’t get out of my head,” he told me in his San Francisco living room. “It’s watching my hands come off that railing and thinking to myself, My God, what have I just done? Because I know that almost everyone else who’s gone off that bridge, they had that exact same thought at that moment. All of a sudden, they didn’t want to die, but it was too late. Somehow I made it; they didn’t; and now I feel it’s my responsibility to speak for them.”

That even when they get there they could not change their mind?

It's stunning how consistent many aspects of suicide are from case to case.

Although, I don't foresee doing any such thing...ever. Which is why I think if I ever did then it would be some spur of the moment thing where I wasn't thinking clearly and just did it... Where as other, uuuh, methods, just seem too to involve too many little steps in between.Where as spontaneously jumping off a bridge or in front a bus or train only takes a step or two..

I hope I'm not coming off as callous or insensitive on this, I just want to say that for someone who probably isn't suicidal, I think such 'quick' ways are more likely...




Argh, I hope never get in a state where I seriously contemplate such things... but the mind seems pretty fragile, aye?

nah...


Leave the bridge alone...

themselves are going to find a way to do it.

However, if anything, I think about the poor rescue crews who have to fish these dead people out of the waters. It has to be very traumatic and sad.

I just know suicide is a crushing emotional blow to families and friends, so anything that can be done to make the act more difficult is probably a good thing.

Strangely, even if a barrier is on one side of a bridge only, suicides on both sides stop.

There's a public health question beyond just preventing suicide.

Keeps the scavengers busy. Only becomes a public health issue, or at least one of tidiness, if whatever the dead thing is washes up on the shore and happens to be exceptionally large.

Between suicides and drownings and body dumps, there are probably A WHOLE FUCKING LOT of human bodies in the bay.

Falling fast doesn't change the composition of the body in a way that makes it more dangerous. Because bodies of people or whales or whatever happens to die get eaten by sharks and smaller scavengers, they pose no threat. Further whatever harmful substances are in them would be dilluted into harmlessness, because it's a big body of water.

Unless a bridge jumper lands on your boat, they're no threat to your health.

I'll let your kayak be the one that takes a body at 54 m/s

Of all the silly things to worry about...

The water's cold. There's strong current.

And most importantly: It's a virtual Interstate Highway of large ocean going vessels on their way to ports in Oakland.

I'd think a bridge jumper would be the least of their concerns.

that show that impulsive suicides are the most lethal and usually the most violent methods. {hanging, jumping, guns, etc} And thought about less than 24 hours.Often this type of suicidal person, if the method they are focused on is not available to them,when the crisis passes, do not complete suicide. So yes, this will save lives.

they go with or don't that if someone is really determined to take their life a barrier will not stop them. Anyhow if they go ahead i think the transparent panel is the best choice.

I'm not going into why, I just am. Especially after seeing that documentary. It stays with you. :(

i saw that movie. Anyhow i think the vertical barrier with transparent panels are a good plan.

I'm not from the bay area but my dad used to live up in Marin. When I visited, each time I crossed the Golden Gate, I was more worried of a quake taking it out from under me than thinking about jumping off of it. Until I saw that documentary, I hadn't pondered that anyone would jump off. Why? It's such a great bridge - one of the people in the doc even says that. Gee, how naive could I have been? That's why I'm for the barrier.

Check out this series on the bridge from 2005: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/30/MNG2NFF7KI1.DTL

Most of the jumpers featured were mentally disturbed and would have found a way. Some, though, are just looking for attention - some of the the ones who were rescued.

I had a friend who slept in his car while traveling and he parked in a lot at the end of the bridge. He was awakened by a cop wanting to know what he was up to - thought he might be a jumper.

I remember, as a kid, visiting the Empire State Building when the observation deck at the top was pretty much open, compared to today.

:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PnqVocIZLY&feature=related

Disturbing. The related vids is suggests also link to various excerpts of the movie. I don't think it's online in it's entirety anywhere though.

everytime i see the bridge now that's what i think of.

One of the jumpers wrote that in his journal. That if one person smiled at him, he wouldn't go through with it.

It's foggy there ALL THE TIME, and the panel will just be misted over. :shrug:

And if it's plexiglas the thing'll crack like no tomorrow.

Though this is an unpopular opinion, I think the idea of a barrier sounds really dumb.

Everyone'll just go to the Bay Bridge. If people want to die, they'll figure out a way.

The only way to stop (most) of the suicides- and by stop I mean shift them off of the bridge- would be to eliminate pedestrian access. But then you'd get suicides parking in the outside lanes and taking a header before somebody can be dispatched, which would probably mean innocents would be hurt or killed in the resulting accidents.

For that matter, the plexiglass barrier could probably be surmounted by the same method, provided one had a fairly tall vehicle and was slightly athletic.

The commuter rail tracks on the SF Peninsula average a death a month, but because they're spread out over 70 miles they don't get the press the bridge does.

The problem isn't the bridge or the train tracks or the pill bottle or the bullet. The problem is that mental health care failed them long before they ever thought about taking their lives, no matter which method they decided on.

Ever walked the bridge? The barrier is only waist high- one could be up and over it in a flash. People who climb up and wait, or who stand there acting crazy, rather than taking the five seconds to go up-and-over, may have suicidal ideation but it would be unreasonable to assume they were actually going to kill themselves. If anything, it would be pretty reasonable to assume most aren't serious about killing themselves- a readily available means was only feet away, there's really no way for somebody to intervene in time, and rather than jumping they waited around long enough to be retrieved.

So really, all that article tells us is that some people who made a very visible cry for help got it.

People with a history of failed suicide attempts are 23 times more likely to die by suicide than those who do not have a history of suicide attempts.

As I explained above, a barrier wouldn't stop people who wanted to go over and into the bay, and those who don't want to go over and really just want help already get stopped and helped.

It wouldn't work, it would be a maintainance nightmare, it would just shift the determined suicides someplace else (probably the cliffs on the Marin county side of the bridge.)

Further, I don't see a good ethical justification for stopping people who are determined to die from doing so in the manner they choose, provided they aren't harming anybody. Since a bridge jumper isn't going to hurt anybody on the way down, unless they land on a whale I guess, it doesn't really seem fair to try to make them persist in what they seem to have decided is a life no longer worth living.

On the other hand, as I explained above a barrier could be easily defeated by parking a tallish vehicle on the bridge, climbing on top, and surmounting the barrier from there. Surely if I can figure that out in a minute or so, a determined bridge jumper could to. That would create a situation where bridge jumpers, who are currently not a threat to public safety, would have to put ordinary bridge commuters at risk from collision with the abandoned vehicle, and thus a situation that currently harms nobody but the jumper would instead be one that would pose a risk to innocent passersby.

Further, I don't see a good ethical justification for stopping people who are determined to die from doing so in the manner they choose, provided they aren't harming anybody. Since a bridge jumper isn't going to hurt anybody on the way down, unless they land on a whale I guess, it doesn't really seem fair to try to make them persist in what they seem to have decided is a life no longer worth living.

Rarely is a suicide something that doesn't hurt anyone else. Almost everyone has a family or friends. Is it fair to them to go and commit suicide? A lot of suicidal people, like the man mentioned in the article, really don't want to die--once they realized they've gone beyond the point of no return. An attempted suicide is usually a cry for help, not a genuine desire to leave this cruel world. Drug overdoses and other forms of suicide are usually unsuccessful. Only attempts using weapons or jumping off a high bridge tend to be successful. Keeping people from easily jumping off this bridge is a legitimate way to help them think twice about offing themselves.

But people all die eventually. Just as I wouldn't resent a person who was physically ill and in pain for choosing release, I see no point in resenting somebody who was mentally ill and in pain from choosing release. And I've had to deal with both in close family members.

Or your spouse or life-partner?

(I'm no expert but I believe what I read in my oft quoted NYTimes mag article)

Anyway even for deeply depressed folks the final act itself tends to be spontaneous. If suicide is very easy you get more of them. The British Coal Gas example - switching to natural gas decreased Britain's national suicide rate by 1/3 overnight since you can't easily kill yourself with natural gas in an oven- bears this out.

There are suicides and foolish cries for help. But making a suicide more difficult cuts the rate of sincere suicides. Your example of getting a tallish vehicle would only apply themselves to the 6% of truly determined suicides. The other 94% do not look elsewhere.

they don't want to mar their precious bridge in order to save lives

I'm told the railing is a few feet shorter than originally planned.

Check out this series about the bridge from 2005: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/30/MNG2NFF7KI1.DTL

A 15 mph speed limit would save lives, but wouldn't be worth it.

The only thing about the Bridge is that it's difficult to put a value on aesthetics.

Here's something comparable: Every year people die while hiking in the Grand Canyon. Should the trails be closed to save lives?

A few lives would be saved but millions would be deprived of a life changing experience.

How do you decide when it's worth it?

no

do people go to the GGB to kill themselves-yes

I'd be willing to be that the vast majority of the deaths in the Grand Canyon-only about 600 over the past century-were accidents or due to stupidity

the GGB has had over 1200 deaths since it opened in 1937

Yes, people go to the Grand Canyon to kill themselves.

Not as many as on the Golden Gate Bridge but there's more people in the immediate area of the GGB so I'm not sure how different the ratios are.

But we're talking about principles here so the raw numbers shouldn't matter. If it's ok to ruin aesthetics in one place to save lives it should be ok to do that everywhere.

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2008/06/26/news/20080626_front_176371.txt

you're comparing apples and watermelons

and fuck aesthetics if it can save lives

And of course there are more deaths on the GGB. More people walk across the GGB than hike the Canyon.

Putting up barriers won't save lives. Someone who is determined to commit suicide will just choose another manner.

However, the barriers CAN help prevent accidents, and they also deter suicidal people from choosing to jump off of the bridge (thus forcing rescue crews to attempt to fish their broken bodies out of the water.) And that's assuming that the body can even be found.

The less dead bodies in the water, the cleaner and healthier the water. I'm for it.

However, I also believe that people who are of sound mind should be able to choose to end their lives, if they wish. So long as they can demonstrate that they aren't mentally ill, I think that the right to do whatever they wish with their own bodies should be inviolate. And a desire to end one's life should not automatically be considered proof of mental illness. Not all people who choose suicide are depressed/insane/mentally ill.

cited, are you really of "two minds"?

I mean, I also believe people should be able to do what they want with their bodies.

However, I don't like seeing it happen, and I think everything should be done to minimize suicide.

In read that many of the people who jumped from the bridge and survived (obviously), immediately regretted it on the way down.

Your OP asked, "Should suicide barriers be installed, or should people be allowed to end their life if they want?"

I meant that while I DO think that the barriers should be installed, I also believe that people should be allowed to end their lives if they want to. Your question posed it as an either/or situation, so I was answering in that way.

Sorry for the confusion. :hi:

:)

It effectively ends many. The suicides pain is over but for family and friends the pain is just beginning and for me will go on forever.

I'm not sure that the pain of the people left behind is a good enough reason to infringe upon someone's right to bodily autonomy. I have a hard time reconciling the idea that our bodies are, and should remain, autonomous for the purpose of abortion, but aren't autonomous for the purpose of ending our own lives. Abortion could potentially cause horrible pain to family members, too--but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. People have the right to consider their *own* pain and hardship first and foremost when making decisions like that, after all.

I suppose I'd just rather err on the side of personal freedom. The government should not have any right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies, so long as we aren't physically harming or violating anyone else. And there should be a line firmly drawn between people who commit suicide due to mental illness and/or depression (i.e., people who can recover and live happy lives with an intervention), and people who commit suicide due to medical conditions and/or unrelenting physical pain. It is the latter group of people who suffer the most from the laws that make ending your life impossible without some kind of violence or trauma.

but feel if you ever were to sit-in on a survivors of suicide group meeting you might change your mind. There you would find wifes, some who witnessed their husbands suicide, left raising their children alone. Or sons and daughters, some who found their parents, feeling hopeless and abandoned. and parents, left, lost, hopelessly sad, and suicidal themselves because they feel they failed their child. Suicide ends 1 life....but can leave many lives destroyed in the wake. Suicide grief is a different animal than other types of grief

depressed or mentally ill. There is impulsive suicide, a reaction to a crisis but often after the crisis passes so does the urge to end your life. And also euthenasia..that's a different topic to me

:eyes:

Many are. Including a family member of mine. See post # 125. Instead of helping prevent unnecessary, tragic death, why don't we work on expanding the right to die for those that aren't depressed/insane/mentally ill instead?

Both in cars and on foot, and the cross-winds can be fierce. I wonder what those barriers would be made of: could they cut down on the wind that tries to blow your car across the road? If so, then that would be another compelling argument for installing them.

Also, I remember from when I lived there that periodically some thrill seekers would try to bungee-jump off it - not people who were suicidal, just the potential Darwin Award nominees. Anything that discourages that sort of nonsense is to be applauded.

Of course, keeping those barriers clean of exhaust and salt spray is going to be a bitch.

One gust had me suddenly two lanes over. Scary.

I agree the clear barriers would be a bitch to keep clean.

The Key Bridge in DC connecting Virginia to Georgetown has the horizontal barriers (if I remember correctly) and it does distract from the view when you're walking along the bridge. Yeah, saving lives is important but trying to maintain aesthetics should be factored in when designing the protective method as well.

I'm at a loss as to what the nets will do though. From the picture above it looks as though it's not going to take much more effort to scramble out of the net and take the plunge anyway.

It's not that far from the bridge to the water.

If you jumped from the nets you'd probably survive, at least initially.

I also looked at the picture and thought "um, what's to stop them from getting out of the net and fall the rest of the way?"

I'd like to see a picture with the railing height raised.

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

of knowing someone who took their own life.

Maybe they should put up diving boards.

What an awful, sad thing to say.

killing themselves.

:thumbsdown:

you should know better than to post dark humor on this SERIOUS anonymous internet discussion board! I see you have been appropriately chastised by the serious police.

Good... good....


:P

What's the opposing argument here? Saving people's lives vs... slightly less pretty views?

eom

People upthread have stated that "impulsive suicides" often make the decision suddenly & regret it or change their minds later on. Those are just the type of people who'd be drawn to the Golden Gate Bridge in an impulsive decision. Maybe some would do it anyway, but some would not. And anyway, I just can't see how preventing suicides is a bad thing. And the "it ruins the view" argument just seems so cold.

I posted a link to a series the San Fran Chronical did about the bridge in 2005. One of the articles within that series was about what Toronto, Ontario did to prevent suicides at one their bridges. Suicide barriers seem to be working fine for them.

"Richard Seiden, a suicidologist and professor emeritus of behavioral science at UC Berkeley... In 1978 Seiden published a study of 515 people who were prevented from jumping off the bridge. He found that only 6 percent went on to kill themselves."

So there you go.

:thumbsup:

Yes for a barrier.

Will this just force people to jump off of the cliffs around the bridge, or off a building, or off the Bay Bridge?

See post #37, a study found that only 6% of prevented bridge jumpers went on to commit suicide a different way. Meaning, it made a difference for 94% percent of people, & saved lives 94% of the time. So that argument is a non-starter.

I wonder how they calculated that.

or at least the post. It tells you exactly how they calculated that.

Think you're missing something important here.

If someone wants to kill themselves, difficult "terrain" isn't going to stop them.

On the other hand, people who had human intervention were more likely to have subsequent follow-up attention, receive needed human contact - anything a human can do that my inspire enough hope to go on long enough to get effective help.

I'm pretty sure this study has no bearing on discussing a "barrier" - though I have not read the study, only post #37.

Why the government/society as a whole should try to stop people from ending their lives. If you don't have the freedom to do whatever you want with your body, what freedom do you have?

Why don't you at least have a problem with subjecting others, including rescue workers and witnesses, to the shock and horror of suicide?

Those poor rescue people who have to recover the broken, bloody bodies.

Do you just think it's their job so, so what?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/02/MNG9UFH43N1.DTL

LETHAL BEAUTY / No easy death: Suicide by bridge is gruesome, and death is almost certain. The fourth in a seven-part series on the Golden Gate Bridge barrier debate.
At Fort Baker, Marin County coroner investigator David Foehner (left) and funeral director Anthony Villeggiante prepare the body of a Golden Gate Bridge suicide for transport to the mortuary. Chronicle photo by John Storey


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=2&f=/c/a/2005/11/02/MNG9UFH43N1.DTL

i've been suicidal in the past and after reading that, even i find bridge jumping hideous...

Is so different from the trauma they'd experience seeing people who died in car crashes or house fires. But hey, why not have the government install public suicide booths in urban centers? That would probably help cut down on messy, public suicides.

As for devastation to family and friends, people can choose to do lots of things that will sadden their families and friends, like committing crimes and getting jailed, converting to a religious/political belief system the family doesn't like, etc.

beings feel when it comes to tragedy.

And before you disregard the feelings of rescue workers ... just because they see accidental deaths, you might want to see if you know what you're talking about.

I can tell you there's a psychological difference between an accidental death and an intentional death.

Your analogy concerning family and friends is just plain ridiculous. Again, there is a psychological impact, cruelly leaving behind those who agonize over whether they're to blame for not noticing warning signs and doing more to intervene.

You can't possibly compare blowing your brains out to committing a crime or becoming a Scientologist.

Those that are left to deal with it have a lifetime of guilt and pain.The parents who may never, ever
recover. A lifetime of anger for children that have been left behind, unable to deal with the fact that a parent
choose to leave them and guilt for the lover who may have had a row before it happened. People who may never understand why, who loved this person, who may of had so much to live for, but for a dark moment. If something prevents that suicide, that person may see another chance and may change their life's. Or people who have spent years worrying and caring about this person who suffers for mental illness and will be devestated to finally lose them in a violent, delibrate manner.

It is horrendous to witness, my mother witnessed a suicide when someone jumped from the 19th floor of the building where she worked, he landed in front of her office, the company had to offer trauma counselling to the staff and my mother still can't forget it ten years later and she worked in a busy London trauma unit before this job.

That is the problem with public suicide it wreaks the lives of people that are just passing by, they in turn are then inflicted with nightmares, have to pay for counselling and drugs for depression, which they may never have needed if they had not witnessed someone take their own life, which in turn can wreak their own families.

For me the worst is people that jump in front of trains, traumatising the train driver, the passengers often with children, the people on the platform and the services and forcing the train line to shut down for hours, which can grind London to a holt on the London Underground. It is an act that in some cases is a random dark moment but for others it is done to cause as much pain while ending life.


The trauma services see plenty of horrors, they see people die all the time who would have fought to live another day, then they are
pulling a body out of a river, witnessing the wilful distruction of a life and they are also the ones that will
have to tell the families, you couldn't pay me enough to do that.

It's impossible to prevent suicide by making it merely more difficult. All you're doing is giving society one more thing to stress over in the attempt to control what cannot be controlled without further agitating circumstance.

I feel horrible for anyone who's had to live with the results of suicide. I've seen the sadness in others; I've worked for a business where someone off the street took advantage of our hospitality and caused great grief by her suicide, and I have spent 1/2 of my life wondering if and when I was going to get a certain devastating phone call.

That is the problem with public suicide it wreaks the lives of people that are just passing by, they in turn are then inflicted with nightmares, have to pay for counselling and drugs for depression, which they may never have needed if they had not witnessed someone take their own life, which in turn can wreak their own families.

Bad things happen. Learn to hurt and live if you want to be human. You'll never know what real joy really feels like if you can't allow yourself to feel pain.

it can destroy the surviving family members long term. suicide has a devastating effect on the lives of many

Not to be confused with assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill, which I think should be allowed... But suicide booths, come on? That means we just given up in actually trying to solve whatever issues may be plaguing our society as a whole. Not the route I'd like to see us go down...

They could jump off the cliffs around the brige or off of any of the many buildings.

:eyes:

We are surrounded by idiots.

again, perhaps you should read the article up thread

a granite cookie has been ordered.

:eyes:

So I didn't know there was a pedestrian walkway... I do think they should put up a barrier for public safety purposes. Reading the article in SF Gate was very sad. :( I've only seen the effects of suicide on its survivors at a remove (my friend's mother took her own life), so I can only imagine the pain and devastation that is left behind.

But if someone is that determined to kill themselves they will find another way.

Just making suggestions...

:eyes:

I'll take it easy on you.

People determined to kill themselves.... will.

How much will this cost? How about investing that money into better suicide prevention programs and resources for those who feel they have nowhere to turn in the bay area?

Our mental health system is crap, and needs to be fixed.

I don't have time for five pages of searching for it.

Sadly I don't have anymore time to comment on it right now.. grrrrr

If you'd read this thread, you'd know that 94% of the people who were stopped, never went on to commit suicide. So this definitely WOULD save lives. Now, as for investing money in suicide prevention programs, that needs to be done too, but there's no point in letting perfect be the enemy of good.

those 94% had PERSONAL INTERVENTION, greatly increasing the likihood that they also had subsequent follow-up from other people and likely got long term help from other people.

No one is debating that people can help people who are suicidal not be suicidal anymore. But an inanimate barrier object is not that. If someone wants to kill themselves, and the building they're at isn't tall enough to kill them, they don't say "wow that buidling isn't tall enough for me to jump from, so I guess I am going to rethink killing myself!" Of course not. They find one that is.

People can stop people who are committing suicide from doing it, a barrier doesn't.

And by the way, I'm a Masters of Social Work, so while just because I say it does not make it so, doesn't mean I don't have a little bit of expertise in the area of mental and emotional distress.

Sure, those people who attempted to commit suicide were stopped by people. But if 94% of them (almost all fer chrissakes) never went on to commit suicide again, then I'd imagine that there are a number of those people who'd be stopped for good just by a physical barrier. It tells me that a large number of these people think better of it, fairly soon after their attempt. If hundreds or even dozens of people will be saved by this, then it's a worthwhile effort.

if a person jumped off the bridge and got caught in the net, then he or she should be able to roll off the net and into the ocean, correct? So what's the point of the nets then?

Nets are for people trying to live, not for people trying to die.

and with the wind howling, it was actually a little scary on the walkway...The railings should be a little higher than they are now. The horizontal barriers as illustrated look pretty nice. Don't know if it will prevent suicides, but it will move them somewhere else, I suspect...

There is a flashing sign with a number to call, like a suicide hotline. Don't know if it's been effective, though.

Fortunately I have no idea how well they work since I've never been tempted to try one

I don't know whether they work or not, or whether the people at the other end only deal with bridge jumpers (I would have to imagine that, given how comparatively rare suicide is, they don't).

As long as you're making aesthetic changes, make one that's effective.

Even suicidal folks would think twice about fucking with that stuff.

That'll learn 'em.

That way you get the job done, and you don't interfere with the aesthetics of the bridge. :P

Safety first!

I am very strongly against this.

In the coming months (years?), the economic and climatic conditions are going to get much, much worse, and there will likely be a huge uptick in suicides as a result.

When someone is depressed and has given up because of an intractable problem with unemployment, tight finances, debt, poor health, and the vicious cycle that these four factors create, counseling does NOT work, and it often cannot be afforded anyway. Same for depression meds. The only way to kick this type of depression is to actually see a change in one's life situation, not to talk things out with a shrink. I have personal experience with this.

Once the corporate powers that be start seeing the uptick in suicides, I guarantee they will try to use their influence with the government to make it much harder to end your own life. Can't continue to suck pennies out of a dead person, after all.

As sick as it sounds, if the economic and climate crises go down the way they're looking, then suicide will end up being the last right we actually have.

People who say that the old growth redwoods along the windy part of 101 should be cut down because people have crashed into them and died.

Yeah, it's sad that people have crashed into the trees and died, but cutting down the trees and making a perfectly straight road is not a solution.

people come from all over to jump, often landing on the cars of houseboat dwellers below. the railing is maybe 42" high.

i just don't get the debate about this. when i lived in Cincinnati, some idiot kid tossed a brick off a highway overpass & it went through the windshield of a driver on I-71. killed him. now, EVERY highway overpass in the city with a sidewalk on it has a barrier similar to picture #3. just to stop people from throwing things on the highway. think about that expense.

a barrier on the Aurora bridge, or the Golden Gate, is going to stop a large percentage of jumpers by making it tough work. people will see you climbing & try to stop you. it will take a minute or so to get over it, not just an impulsive 5 seconds. if they're really determined, they'll go elsewhere & so be it.

besides, i remember a story of a toddler walking the golden gate slipping between the railing & the sidewalk & falling before their parents' eyes. just a couple years ago. that railing isn't even to current code.

I support the right to die. Suicide, though, is often because of treatable mental illness, or despair that time and help can heal.

I lost a much loved family member off the Golden Gate bridge New Year's eve 1971.

She wasn't sick, she wasn't disabled. She was healthy, lovely, and loving.

She despaired. She got tired of hiding her real self from the world, of fearing social isolation and professional doors shutting.

She was a lesbian. She tried staying in the closet. She tried dating men. She didn't deal well with the judgment of society.

I wish to god there'd been a barrier there that night.

you have hit the nail on the head. Sorry about the loss of your family member:hug:

It's been almost 37 years, and I still feel her loss. A bright light went out of the world, and it didn't have to happen.