If it’s my bridge/bay/city, I don’t want people using it for that purpose for numerous reasons. Prevention is necessary and there are associated costs. Such is life.
I’d rather they jump than walk in front of a train.
In Toronto, the Bloor Street Viaduct had suicide barriers put up in 2003. A study was done a few years later to see if it reduced suicides. The results indicated the average number of deaths by jumping off things remained approximately the same and other bridges in the area had increased suicide rates. So the evidence suggests this won’t even stop people from committing suicide. They’ll just find other places to do it.
Barriers were recently added to a bridge near where I live. The barriers do not detract from the appearance of the bridge in any way. Unfortunately, it’s easily climbable. I haven’t found any figures on if it’s been effective yet, as it’s only been three months, and they don’t like to give publicity to jumpers for fear of attracting more. It’s the only jump-worthy bridge around here, so barriers will not make jumpers just go find another nearby bridge.
My guess is it will deter some people, especially teens who feel suicidal today but in time will outgrow it. A DOT spokesman “offers the analogy of someone craving an unhealthy food item. If the item is in the fridge, it’s easy to satisfy that impulse. On the other hand, if the person has to go to the store to buy the item, the impulse has encountered an obstacle and may not be acted upon.”
I used to work in the Hennepin County Government Center , here in Minneapolis. This building has 2 large 24-story towers, connected by an indoor atrium, with open balconies on both sides, and pedestrian bridges connecting the towers on every third flood.
After the building was opened, there were several suicides by people jumping into the atrium. So they installed 6-foot-high glass barricades on all the balconies & bridges (which messed with the building ventilation system, which was already sub-optimal, and added a large cleaning expense).
So then someone still committed suicide by hauling a couple of the public seating benches together, climbing on them, and jumping over the barricade.
So they suggested preventing suicides by removing all the seating benches in the building. That was stopped by the protests of the seniors who use the building. So they spent money bolting them all down to the floor. (That then caused problems to the janitors trying to clean the carpets.) But lots of the rooms there have chairs in them – I expect someone to use one of those chairs to commit suicide next.
So I would oppose this proposal for the Golden Gate Bridge. People determined to commit suicide will find a way, regardless. (Besides, this is probably the method with the least cost to the public. There is little cleanup cost for a bridge jumper, compared to jumping in front of a bus or train, inciting a cop to shoot them, etc.)
Isn’t there another bridge in San Francisco Bay? Aren’t there other bridges in California? Shouldn’t California have to put up suicide barriers on all of its bridges? What about Hoover Dam? Royal George? …and other high places within driving distance of California?
1 sandbag will not stop the Mississippi from flooding.
I dunno, if the rate went from “several” down to “one” and now there haven’t been any for quite some time, that sounds reasonably successful to me.
I mean, I agree that people are always going to find a way around barriers, so “zero suicides” is not a realistic goal but maybe “fewer suicides” is.
That’s it? Those hardly look awful, even on an iconic structure (and just Googling ‘suicide barrier’ brings up some more, none of which look worse than regular construction barriers).
That reminds me, I’ve been meaning to watch the documentary The Bridge. Even the trailer gives me the chills.
I think a couple of well placed diving boards with streaming video would make the bridge a wonderful tourist attraction. Maybe some sort of floating targets with hooks to help with concentration and help keep the body recovery costs down. Darwin population control. Put up a sign beside the diving board say “no cannon balls” or illegals.
If you chose to participate in this thread, please note that most of the posts were made in April 2006 and the people who made the posts may not be here to reply.
Nobody said it’s worth it if it saves one life. This is usually called a strawman argument - you’ve created a dumbed-down caricature of your opponent’s position rather than what they actually think. It’s not a good debate tactic, and you’ve take it further than most people do.
Since nobody said “if it saves one life, it’s worth it,” this is not a logical extension of anything. We don’t have self-driving cars (for example) because while they might be safer, they would be very complicated and extremely expensive to develop in addition to any issues with person liberty. Compared to that, it’s pretty easy to put a barrier on a bridge.
That said, there are still no suicide barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge today because of various concerns about how they would look, how they would affect the bridge, and what they would cost. In 2008 the bridge board of directors approved a plan to build a large net under the bridge, but funding has been a problem.
I’m not persuaded by the argument that if you deny a person one avenue of suicide, they will just choose another. I think that’s true for people who are chronically mentally ill, but not everyone who tries to kill himself has those problems. Some suicides are impulsive and a significant number of people of people who fail to kill themselves (I don’t know how many) do not try again.
I watched based on a recommendation in one of the Netflix Instant What Should I Watch? threads. I wasn’t disappointed. Very evocative and sad, but also well done (in filming and editing) and respectful to its subjects. I’ll add my two cents to the rec. Watch it and then go get some ice cream with a close friend or family member or something. You’ve got to find a way to cheer yourself up afterwards.
IMHO, it’s a waste of money to erect a suicide barrier on the GGB. Those who want to kill themselves will find another way. Better to put the money into helping the mentally and emotionally at-risk. I would think suicide support organizations get better results for the money invested than a barrier on a single bridge would.
Sure, but are you going to erect a barrier around anything a person might impulsively use to commit suicide? A kid I went to high school with stepped out into a busy four lane boulevard right in front of his apartment, sat down in the middle of a lane and put his head down. He didn’t survive. A barrier on the side of the street might have stopped him, or he might have just walked down to another street to do it. How many impulsive suicides by car or train is a barrier on one bridge going to prevent?
My point is, you can’t put a barrier around everything. Why this one particular thing?
No.
If someone wants to die, why make it hard for them and messy for us? World’s over-populated as heck anyway…
if death is not barrier enough, what is? it seems this is a matter of not wanting the location associated with suicides more than anything.
Because this particular thing happens to be highly attractive to people committing suicide. If you had a couple of people per week throwing themselves into traffic at your intersection, I imagine there would be some discussion of how to minimize or prevent this.
Because there’s a suicide jump of the Golden Gate Bridge every other week, give or take. So putting up a barrier here (assuming it works) would be much more effective than putting a barrier in any other one location. Supposedly barriers have worked elsewhere, but I don’t know what statistics back that up.
I have to agree with this. We didn’t have any say in being born, but we should all have a way in when and how we die.
You didn’t say anything about where. 
We’re not talking about making suicide illegal (and I know it is in some places). The idea is to discourage suicides at what is evidently the most popular suicide spot in the world. I don’t think that infringes on the right to self-determination.
I understand this. I can’t find data, but I’m guessing there are more suicides occurring elsewhere in San Francisco than at the GGB. The purpose of the barrier is not to curb suicide, it’s to relocate it to a less visible place. I think the money is better spent actually providing medical attention and mental health support to suicidal and at-risk populations.