Suicides only happen off of Golden Gate Bridge

Why does California have to be so stupid sometimes?

The short story: about 2000 people have suicided off of the Golden Gate Bridge since 1937. For some reason, the 19 directors managing the bridge feel that this is horrible and are seriously considering spending $25 million to make the bridge suicide proof.

The rant:
Over 3200 people killed themselves just in California in 2001 alone, but we should really spend lots of money that we don’t have to keep a couple people a year from using this particular method to off themselves. I guess if they got there and weren’t able to climb the fence, they’d reconsider.

I really hate California right now.

Chill a little. Hating an entire state because they are thinking about some kind of barrier to prevent suicides off the bridge.

I don’t know how long you have lived here, but the suicide barrier issue seems to come up every few years, and nothing has happened yet, and I doubt it will this time.

Before I read that article, I thought the idea of spending money to erect a better suicide prevention barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge was ridiculous.

After reading it, I think I was wrong. It made a strong case for the impulsive nature of suicide and cited studies to support that notion. The cost and aesthetics are open to debate (one human life is not “priceless”), but I am now convinced that a better barrier on the bridge would save lives.

So - thanks for educating me, and your Pitting sucks.

Is there a practical reason California doesn’t want people killing themselves off the bridge? I know there is speculation that these are “impulse” suicides, but then so are the people who throw themselves under a bus, or uck on the business end of a gun–only they don’t have to travel miles in order to get to just the right spot.

Nothing but sharks and water down there anyway, why not mount a diving platform and a sign out book for them?

nuroman makes a good point…

But if they are going to spend money to save “priceless” lives, they ought to think about somekind of device/barrier/whatever, that pervents head on collisions.

Here in Tampa, our Skyway bridge competes every year with the Golden Gate for the bridge with the most suicides. We were “winning” a few years ago, but I think the Golden Gate may have pulled ahead when the dot-com bubble burst.

Anyhoo, when someone is threatining to jump off the Skyway, traffic is sometimes restricted on the bridge for hours while cops try and reason with the poor SOB. If they do jump, the Coast Guard et al. have to spend several hours trying to find the body. End result, the expense to the gov’t is far higher then if someone simply offs themselves in the comfort of their own home. I assume similar conditions would prevail in CA and make a Golden Gate suicide barrier more cost effective then you think.

There are a number of bridges in CA that have helpful signs on them extolling those who might be considering suicide to call a hotline number. I wouldn’t have believed it until I actually saw the one on the Coronado Bridge.

I don’t think it’s worth $25M to retrofit that bridge. Sorry.

Jumping of a bridge isn’t an impulse suicide. ‘Planned’ suicides, where somebody drives to such a location, are often ones where somebody can be swayed away from that decision. Beachy Head, the cliffs in southern England that top the British suicide toll, had its tally drop dramatically after putting up a sign in foot-high letters with the Samaritans helpline number, beside a public phone.

I choked on this: ““It is tragic that the symbol of the city and the symbol of California is equated with death,” said Sarah Cherny.”

Uh, I lived in the Bay Area for 20 years, and if I were forced to free associate the words “Golden Gate,” I don’t think I would have come up with suicide in a million years. I’m very sorry for her loss, but the bridge was not the problem here.

All things considered, I’d rather have the bridge shut off to pedestrian traffic than have a fence put up around it.

Oh, I have more reasons for hating the state. But thanks for the heads up about this being a recurring issue.

While I agree that bridge suicides cost the state a lot in emergency personnel and whatnot, seems to me that every suspicious death costs some amount of money since they all have to be investigated as homicides until proved otherwise. Given the yearly number of suicides off that particular bridge, I just can’t see the State recouping the cost of the barrier any time soon.

And just how effective could a barrier be? There are lots of places around the Golden Gate Bridge that are excellent suicide points. The bridge is just paved and convenient. And the city is full of tall buildings that are a lot closer than then bridge. In fact, I’d rather someone jumped off a bridge than a building. At least there’s little chance they’ll land on a person or car.

There’s been many suggestions for this as well. The “No, it’ll ruin our bridge” folks win out everytime. Doesn’t happen all that often anyway.

I havn’t driven over that bridge in a while, but there used to be some sort of suicide hotline telephones on the bridge. Does anyone know if they’re still there? Also would anyone know if people used these phones and it helped save lives or not?

If the phones helped, no harm in putting up 10 phones on each side. I’m not sure if netting a whole bridge is a great idea.

The way you contradict yourself proves the point. Suicidal people aren’t thinking straight. They often don’t take the most logical or easiest option. The numbers have to be allowed to speak for themselves - this bridge is a magnet for suicides.

Nice. Really nice. How about building a big tower in the middle of nowhere somewhere in Nevada, with a specially cordoned-off landing area?

I seem to be very distracted today. This is the second time in five minutes that I’ve posted and had to follow up with what I meant to say in the first place.

The idea of putting a fence around the bridge reminds me of a poem, that, ironically, hails fences as the more commonsense means to stopping accidents. In the case of the Golden Gate Bridge, however, I’d argue putting fences up all over the place strikes me as the solution that the ambulance provides in the poem.

Good point.

I’m just saying that if they they are going to spend money to save lives, I’d vote to spend it on preventing head on collisions.

To me, a suicide barrier is like closing a bar to prevent alcholism.

Terrific article in the New Yorker from 2003.

Originally posted by Tad Friend:

You, sir, should be in charge of something. Anything. This is brilliant. :smiley:

that was the idea suggested by Niven and Pournelle in Oath of Fealty. Quarter-mile high building (arcology). Can’t stop the determined, so the fences lead to a diving platform, complete with board. :smiley:

Of course, N & P have a sensor-triggered net save the jumpers, but that is a small quibble. Post signs, provide some phones, but don’t mess with the bridge.

Think of it as evolution in action.

2000 suicides since 1937? That’s 30 people a year. At a cost of $25 million, $833,333 a person, assuming that the suicide rate off the bridge remains the same. If someone handed me $833,333, I would be less suicidal right now. Granted, not all suicides are for money reasons, but the point is that this $25 million could surely be better spent elsewhere.

I rather like this idea. At least 12 people won’t be killed the next time someone’s SUV derails a train.

Yeah, it’s harder to harvest their stem cells if they’re all soggy.