There’s been a signifigant amount of chatter in the last year or so about putting a “suicide barrier” up on the Golden Gate bridge. Today, funding for a study on effectiveness, structural issues, and the like is finally in place. So, we can expect the debate to continue, and, since it’s San Francisco, I’m going to guess that they’re going to go ahead with the barrier, because it’s “humane.”
So, let’s do this: Say that the barrier will not effect the bridge’s structural soundness & would catch, I don’t know, 95% of those who tried jumping off. But, of course, it’s going to be an eyesore. Which side are you on?
Personally, and this might sound callous, I’m fervently against it. Why spend taxpayer money and uglify one of the iconic American structures to simply take away a single avenue available for suicide? I’m in the minority of the people I’m talking with up here in the Bay, and I’m curious to hear some other opinions.
I heard somewhere (argh, wish I had time to find a cite) that a significant portion of jumpers survived and regretted their attempt. Don’t know if that changes things, but with a barrier, I would think it might encourage more jumpers, like people who attempt suicide for attention, safe in the knowledge that they won’t actually die.
I agree with you. It’s a waste of money and does nothing to prevent a suicidal person from stepping in front of a bus, or getting a cheap gun and blowing their brains out, or consuming a bottle of aspirn and chasing it with a bottle of whiskey.
I would think that if they wanted to stop people from killing themselves, spend the money on helping people who are or may become suicidal.
That’s actually a wonderful point. I’ve never heard it made either. I’m filing that away for the next time someone calls me an inhumane monster…you know, instead of a birdmonster.
I think there should be a 7 day waiting period for a pedestrian permit to walk on the bridge. That should help.
That is terrible and a product of “If it only saves one life…” school of thought. I agree that it could trigger other suicide attempts as well as waste a buttload of money that could be put to be use, maybe kill a few workers that have to put the thing up, and ugly-up a landmark.
Would a significant portion of those people who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge not even consider suicide via a different means? If so, then it would be a good decision to put the net up. However, just like murder, suicide can happen in an infinite number of ways. Jumpers will just find some other way to do it. It is impossible to make all things used for suicide impossible or illegal. Hell, there are even other bridges in San Francisco, though none of them have the cache of the GGB. Stupid idea.
(Hijack: I once thought up the idea of marketing Pittsburgh as a suicide hotspot due to our impressive array of bridges. Choose from one of nine exciting deaths!)
It seems most people who jump off the bridge die. Those who survive are usually severly injured.
That said I do not like the whole suicide barrier thing for the same reasons already mentioned. If someone wants to kill themself this will not stop them. The money is better spent elsewhere.
There was an SF Chronicle piece a few months back (and it’s a terrible newspaper, mind you, so I’m not going to look for a link) that did have interviews with some people that survived and regretted it. Of course, those folks that didn’t regret it, they’re dead. So I didn’t read into that too much. Also, very few do survive, as W-a-M just noted.
Isn’t it possible to construct a suicide barrier that’s not an eyesore?
I don’t know… I wouldn’t call you inhuman, exactly, but I don’t really have a problem with making it a little more difficult for people to kill themselves. I have a hard time believing that a barrier would increase the attempts. You might get some attention-seekers, but you would also deter jumpers who are really intent on killing themselves.
That story also makes me want to find out why so many Bay Area residents are suicidal. Is the suicide rate in SF any higher than anywhere else?
Are we also going to ban OTC headache pills? And razorblades? Or can these products only be used under the supervision of a licensed medical practicioner? Should people be allowed to walk alongside of traffic or wade in the ocean? They might “slip.”
Face it, we’re never going to stop people from killing themselves. If people want to do it they’ll find a way. This money would do much better if invested in suicide prevention programs that get to people before they even go out to the bridge.
I think there are cases of people traveling out to SF to jump from the Bridge because of its history as an attractive jumping spot. If it’s closed they’ll just go to the GWB in New York, or the Seattle Space Needle, or something.
The argument davenportavenger made about suicide prevention programs is one I’ve made and thoroughly agree with. As for skammer’s comment: I can’t imagine a single person who would ONLY kill themselves by jumping off the GG bridge. It doesn’t have a monopoly on American suicide locales.
And yeah, this might come off as "inhuman"ish, but this is a national monument. If people were jumping off Lincoln’s nose on Mount Rushmore, do we put a net around it? No.
What does a suicide (or attempt) cost the city? I’m sure rescue attempts are made every time someone jumps. Those who survive will be a burden to the medical system. The police probably needs to recover the dead ones and do a perfunctory investigation to make sure it wasn’t a murder, and I imagine such work is harder for a Golden Gate Bridge jumper than, say, someone who shot himself. If the barrier pays for itself within a reasonable amount of time, I’d say go for it.
No, but it does have drama. Sort of like throwing yourself from one of the letters of the Hollywood(land) sign.
I’m against it. If someone is going to commit suicide and they’re bound and determined to use a bridge, there’s another one on the other side of the city, and six more all over the bay.
Again, I think that the major impetus for such a barrier is the same reasoning as your main objection to the barrier: It’s a national icon.
Those who want the barrier (From what I’d read) feel a sense of having their favorite icon cheapened, or degraded when it’s in national, or even just local, media because someone else has used it for a suicide attempt. Successful, or otherwise.
I’m with you, however - this thing is going to be an eyesore. And of questionable use for the human purpose of preventing suicide. All it will do is prevent (or reduce) suicides from the GG bridge. I’d think that a more effective means to prevent suicide in general would be to put similar funding to suicide prevention programs.
It’s a grandiose way to go, but it’s far from the only means. And compared to suicde by bus, cop, or train, it’s more humane, IMNSHO.
Does anyone have an image of the barrier so we can determine how (un)obtrusive it is?
I can’t recall if the GG Bridge already has a standard safety chain-link fence on it or not; if not, there should at least be one of those. But my initial reaction is to side against the “if it saves just one life” crowd – someone that determined to off themselves will find another way anyway…
Here’s a link to what I thought was a pretty one-sided series of stories a few months ago. There’s a lot there, but if you’re curious, read on. I can’t find a picture of possible barrier schematics.
And yes, the feasability study is now fully funded.
What bothers me was the part supposedly about “Is suicide preventable.”
What the studies they’re linking to seem to be proving is that most, not all but most, of those who survived suicide attempts don’t try again. This is most emphatically not the same as saying that preventing suicides with suicide barriers on the Bridge will prevent suicides.
Yes, impulse takes a part in the decision process, and I’ll accept that we’re talking about a pretty vivid image. But I’d love to see some stats on how many suicides by cop, bus, or train there are annually.
I’m still of the opinion that, for suicide prevention, as a general goal, the money could be better spent.
I’m not convinced that suicide prevention should be society’s concern. I have a general fear of the rule of the state and feel that my control over my life is a decision that is to be ceded to no entity.