BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
Daisy Does the 49ers: Green Bay Tops SF
Truck Fire at 25th and Geary
The Week Ahead: Bay Area Concerts 11/23 - 11/29
SFist Tonight
Leapin' lizards! Estimations for the suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge, which initially ran anywhere from $15 million to $25 million, would now cost around $50 million, at least according to environmental assessment released Monday by the Golden Gate Bridge District. The pimped out bridge might include the following: An 8-foot vertical fencing system to the existing 4-foot-tall hand railt; an 8-foot-tall horizontal fencing system to the 4-foot-tall hand rail with a "winglet" or panel on top; replacing the 4-foot-tall hand rail with a 12-foot-tall vertical fence; replacing the 4-foot-tall handrail with a 10-foot-tall horizontal fence with a winglet on top, for a total height of 10 feet; and installing a horizontal net system 20 feet below the sidewalk that extends 20 feet from the bridge. (But can't the distraught just jump over the netting after the first plunge?) The bridge sees an average of two suicides per month.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Check out our provocative interview with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom! He says "Forget gay marri
[more]
If I were suicidal, the Golden Gate Bridge is a very picturesque location, so it'd be on my list of things to jump off of.
selfish bastards.
Nah, overdose is clearly the way to go, as it presents the least gruesome picture for your family when they find your corpse.
Leaving your body in some sort of really grotesque fashion just seems to add insult to injury.
But I don't judge the suicidal people themselves one way or another.
If they put a barrier up then people will commit suicide the way my aunt did it...off her 14th floor balcony. She barely missed the two people walking by. Luckily for them they only needed psychotherapy.
$50 Million to save people who want to die...WTF. Use that funds for the Bay Bridge! Stupidest idea ever!!!
@megang: how about using the funds for stem cell research? Trying to keep folks alive who actually want to live, imho, is a much better investment.
it's worth pointing out a NY Times Magazine article that changed me from anti barrier to pro barrier.
The Bay Bridge wants to LIVE! She wants to bike! Spend that $50 million so she can have bicyclists riding the entire span of her!
HHumbert...good idea. Anything but a barrier!
We don't need a suicide barrier. If people are bent on killing themselves, a barrier isn't going to stop them. In fact not having a barrier probably prevents more deaths because it's freakin scary. A barrier is just a monument to how attractive suicide is to those insisting on doing so. And I'm not willing to pay for the maintenance of this structure.
Can we ever return to a republic society where people take responsibility for themselves and the government isn't legislated into babysitting us?
Thank you!
. . . and you stay classy, travin, absentee, et al.
You know what's even classier?
My back of the envelope calculations of how much this costs us per suicidal.
So next time you see that goth kid on the bridge with his mane flapping in the breeze, tell him he's not worthless.
He's valued at a cool $2 million.
hey, all:
let's remember that people who have lost loved ones on the ggb also read this site. so: try to be on your best behavior on this thread, ok? they've gone through all of the stage of grief, and i'm sure none of them want to repeat any of them.
thanks!
Well if you can't go quietly into the bay, you might as well make use of your 2nd amendment right recently upheld by the US Supreme Court. That would be my logic if I had to rule out the GG Bridge as an option.
I support the $50 mill bridge only if there is a diving board option for the REALLY serious folks. Install diving boards on the bridge every 100 feet or so. Of course, these can be added to the netting as well...in case they miss the first time. This way, people who want to jump must 1) be serious and unstoppable, 2) have some balls to walk the plank, and 3) can go out in style.
It might sound insincere, but I bet suicides would significantly decrease. And we could have a Bridge2 featuring extreme diving board moves.
OrangeDrink, thanks for the article recommendation. Though one quote is catching my eye: "...but in the larger scheme of things, there will always be those driven to take their own lives, and there’s really not much that we can do about it."
The movie "The Bridge" reaffirmed that quote for me. Only 24 people jumped in 2004. Those 24 seemed very driven to end their lives and it seems the barrier would just be something to slow them down, not prevent it all together. I would have people jump off the bridge than in Union Square
NIMH is right. Most people who commit suicide show signs of depression and mental illness. But getting them to do something about it is a whole other topic. Until then, why should we spend all this time, money and effort on something that isn't going to be effective in the long run? And by effective I mean, it might prevent people from jumping off the bridge but it won't prevent them from committing suicide.
I agree with Megang wholeheartedly. If someone is hell-bent on suicide, better they jump off the GG Bridge, where it's highly likely they'll only hurt themselves, than to force them to jump off a building (Odeon/H&M anyone?) where they could hurt an innocent, non-suicidal passerby.
As for the financial cost, pfft. We spend money on far dumber things than fishing people out of the bay. Iraq, anyone?
@megang, agreed. Part of my disagreement with this barrier is that people are using THAT as a last resort to prevent suicide. In the cycle of depression and suicide, procrastinating is a bad tactic. And if folks in our society are so frightened to ask, intervene, discuss and get blunt with those they care about, well then no barrier is going to help.
Nobody wants to take responsibility in our current culture, and to help those showing obvious signs that suicide is an imminent conclusion. Legislation and a bridge barrier cannot change our culture, it only enables it to get weaker.
Who cares if people who have lost loved ones read this site? How is calling this barrier plan the stupidest thing ever proposed insensitive? Why should everyone be held responsible for an individual's own, personal decision, no matter how sad the end result is?
As many others have stated, if a person wishes to kill him/herself, he/she will find a way. Why should we as citizens have to pay for a barrier as a way to protect people from themselves?
This is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Everyone who cares at all about common sense needs to speak up loudly and ensure this never happens.
I wonder where people are getting the information that makes them so certain that those deterred from suicide on the GG Bridge will just kill themselves some other way, because all the peer-reviewed research I've seen indicates that at the very least there is no evidence that this is the case, and at most that the exact opposite is true. I found at least 8 studies to this effect in only a few minutes of searching on PubMed, and I know that there are more out there.
Suicide is often an impulsive act that can be prevented by limiting access to fatal means (guns, bridges, poisons, etc.) The research shows that jumping in particular tends to be an impulsive suicidal act, even more impulsive than many other means, and that people who are prevented from jumping from sites like the GG Bridge are unlikely to kill themselves by jumping from anywhere else.
If you want to argue that saving the lives of suicidal people is not worth the cost or the disruption of the view from the bridge, have at it (though I think that's kind of jerky, we don't have to agree on a point of opinion), but the argument that barriers will not prevent suicides because people will just go elsewhere has already been disproven.
holly: You are confusing the "cry for help"/impulsive suicide attempts with the "I really want to die" suicides. I've known people very close to me in both categories. Guess which ones are still alive? No "cry for help" person is going to look down from the GG Bridge and not get vertigo and chicken out. Those who really want to die, prepare themselves well, and usually succeed. It is why no 3-day waiting period on a gun will ever stop a real suicide.
"If they're going to kill themselves, they'll just find a different way."
Oh yeah?
"In the late 1970s, Seiden set out to test the notion of inevitability in jumping suicides. Obtaining a Police Department list of all would-be jumpers who were thwarted from leaping off the Golden Gate between 1937 and 1971 — an astonishing 515 individuals in all — he painstakingly culled death-certificate records to see how many had subsequently “completed.” His report, “Where Are They Now?” remains a landmark in the study of suicide, for what he found was that just 6 percent of those pulled off the bridge went on to kill themselves. Even allowing for suicides that might have been mislabeled as accidents only raised the total to 10 percent."
so, let's take 10% of the 24 suicides a year and we see that we get 2.4 suicides. Sure, it's possible that some will jump and continue to crawl off, but that little difference would save about $38 mil per year according to Generic's math.
Holly wrote:...If you want to argue that saving the lives of suicidal people is not worth the cost or the disruption of the view from the bridge
>
Just as generic opined above, and Bush supporters have opined that being against the war is being against the troops and unpatriotic, or that wearing fur means one is in favor of cruelty to animals...
...just because folks aren't in favor of this bridge barrier doesn't mean they think people are worthless and not worth saving. That's quite a stretch.
If folks in your opinion would like to have a more constructive, properly objective and believable discussion of the topic, please refrain from framing your arguments in the context of an illogically concluded and disingenuous guilt trip. Most appreciated.
OrangeDrink: I was making a distinction between those who are determined to kill themselves and those who are crying out for help. I was not referring to the effect of human intervention on someone who is determined to kill themselves. Absent human intervention, the people determined on killing themselves will succeed. Your statistics are correct but have no bearing on the situation.
If the GG Bridge is made impossible to jump from by this barrier, nobody will try to jump from it in the first place and will instead resort to other methods of suicide. Your statistics are pointing to people who were thwarted by human intervention, NOT a metal barrier. That is key. Your statistics only prove what Travin was saying--that human intervention is what counts. Barriers are just an excuse for a population that has grown more and more apathetic to their fellow cohorts. Sure it has good intentions, but it will not work.
Orangedrink, 10% repeat suicide attempt success rate is a statistical norm.
Largo01 -
I'm not trying to sound pedantic, but, again, the article I indicated shows how adding a barrier to one bridge virtually eliminated suicides off of it, while another bridge that would work equally well and was literally yards away, did not see a significant increase in suicides. Human intervention is not a factor.
I think you're making a distinction between people crying for help and people who commit suicide impuslively. Someone crying for help isn't going to stop until they've done something that gets them help. Someone who just thinks about killing themselves and goes through with it immediately (70% of suicides planned for their suicide for less than an hour, 24% decided in the space of five minutes, which puts them pretty well within 'impulsive') can be stopped by these barriers.
So, for saving human lives, the barriers would work. For saving money, the barriers would work. The only arguments against it are aesthetic or because you think people should be able to throw themselves off the bridge, despite the fact that nearly all who do and survive regret having done it in the first place.
By the way Brock, best faux-SFgate comment ever.
OrangeDrink wrote: ....The only arguments against it are aesthetic or because you think people should be able to throw themselves off the bridge..
>
You might want to look into this subject a bit further because in this comment thread alone several of the vast number of reasons not to build it are clearly stated.
I'm not attacking your statistics. Although the impulsive suicide is to me a cry for help, because those people don't actually want to die. They make an impulsive decision based on their current emotional state=they just want attention. So if someone gets in a fight with their boyfriend and decides to jump out their 10th story building window... oops. that would be impulsive, probably preventable with a barrier. They probably wouldn't have done it if the means weren't right in their grasp--as you say.
but!
It takes a while to get to the GG Bridge. And most people who kill themselves there come from a lot of places (not just the presidio). I say it takes planning to kill yourself on that bridge. Even for people living in San Francisco, you've got to figure out which busline will take you there, etc. And I'm not meaning to be funny about this either. Lover's leap in Yosemite requires planning too. More than an hour.
largo, add to that the fact that more often than not the access gates on the bridge are locked and difficult, at best, to get around.
Oh dear. I'm afraid we're at an impasse.
I reread the comments at your urging, travin, but I'm not seeing any other arguments.
See, the weird thing is, if I hadn't read that article? I'd totally be on your side, travin and largo01. a week ago I'd be fighting with you instead of against you.
All I can say is that statistically, the barrier would save lives and money. So I think it's worth it.
I am not confusing "the 'cry for help'/impulsive suicide attempts with the 'I really want to die' suicides," I am pointing out that the research proves that most suicide attempts are impulsive--particulary bridge or other jumping attempts--and that it has been PROVEN that bridge barriers can prevent the majority of these, not just from the bridge but altogether.
Actually OrangeDrink stated the problem I have with that dichotomy a lot more eloquently than I can.
There is also a great deal of research proving that most suicides do not in fact want to die, they want to end the pain that they feel and suicide is the only way they (mistakenly, unless we are speaking of a terminal or chronic incurable and untreatable condition) believe that that they can accomplish that.
Also, travin, I did not mean to imply that everyone arguing against the barrier believes that suicides are not worth saving, but I have often heard the argument that it is not worth the money to save only 24 lives per year. You yourself said that you are not willing to pay for the maintenance for the barrier, because you feel it won't work. Since barriers *have* been proven to work, contrary to your belief, I don't know what other grounds one would have for opposing them besides the cost or the view or something else that I'm not thinking of.
Also I"m not sure I understand your post about 10% second suicide attempt success rate, because to me that implies that 10% of second suicide attempts are successful NOT that 10% of those who attempt suicide try again. If that is what you meant, then the flip side is that 90% DON'T try again which I think actually bolsters the argument that supporters of the barrier are trying to make.
(actually, I should make a correction, I'm not totally sure that research shows that MOST suicide attempts are impulsive, and it depends on how "impulsivity" is defined for the purposes of any given study. It's pretty clear though that many if not most suicide are impulsive, especially among younger people, and there are definitely studies showing that suicide by jumping tends to be more impulsive than most other means.)
Ok, so if we agree that most suicides are impulsive, then you will agree that trekking up to the GG Bridge requires more than impulse. I'm saying the GG Bridge is in such a location and is such a symbol that you are not attracting impulsive jumpers, rather you are attracting seriously suicidal people. If it were an impulse, they would jump out the window of their apartment before finding their way to the GG Bridge to jump. Is my point coming across? I'm not denying your statistics, but I'm saying they have no application to the situation of the GG Bridge.
And I'm 100% certain that the impulsive suicides are not the serious ones, but rather they are of the cry for help type. I say this because being impulsive denotes heat of the moment. If one is trying to get attention, trying to get help, they do it by lashing out sporadically, or reacting impulsively. The ones who are seriously depressed are not the impulsive ones. They seclude themselves from others and plan their exit strategy quietly and patiently--patient enough to plan a trip to San Francisco to jump off the GG Bridge.
I don't take this issue lightly. It has pesonally affected me. But that is why I'm saying not to bother with the barriers on the bridge. I know it won't do any good for the type of people who choose to jump from it. These things cannot be stopped by barriers, rather they can only be stopped by concerned peers. I would agree that if these were the sporadic jumpers, then yes, you are right--put up the barrier. But I just don't see it. If I were going to sporadically kill myself and there was a barrier on the GG Bridge, I wouldn't try jumping from it, I would jump from somewhere else closer by--that would be more in tune to the sporadic nature of my attempt after all. And if I were a serious about suicide and it was carefully planned, of course putting a barrier up on one bridge in the world won't change much, since I will find another way.
that's all I've got.
@holly: roughly 10% of people that attempt suicide try again and are successful. I mentioned this because orangedrink mentioned that number in context of only the GGB and associated study, as though intervention saved 90% of bridge jumpers. technically it did but, again, that's a statistical norm with all folks that attempt suicide. So there's no relevant significance.
>
.. but I have often heard the argument that it is not worth the money to save only 24 lives per year.
>
here's a hypothetical (unfortunately I see no other way to get the point across regarding a logical fallacy.)
The government demands that the only way to protect the spotted tulle deer tick is to submerge all roadways in the coastal regions of california. the project will cost upwards of $700 billion and everyone will now be taxed at the rate of 65% for the next 20 years to pay for it. If you oppose this plan, you clearly don't care about the lives of the spotted deer tick.
If your first reaction is "we're not talking about ticks, we're talking about human beings!" and/or "the barrier won't cost that much" then please move to the back of the line. No cake for you.
i'm not really well versed in bridge construction but i still find the figure of 50 million bucks to build a fence kind of puzzling.
i just looked at a fencing site online and to cover 18,000 feet (about 1.7miles x 2 sides) you are looking at 2250 panels at 8 feet each, for $259 a pop. this is for a fancy steel bar fence.. so materials cost is just under $600k. Even if you quintuple the price for special "bridge fencing" or barbed wire or whatever you're looking at like 2-3 mil, tops. and that's without the volume discounts or other stuff. figure another couple mil for installation/labor.. where does the other 40+ million go??
i suspect it would be even cheaper to hire like a dozen people to patrol along the bridge with lassos, bungie cords, and tasers.. maybe cans of mace that have xanax in them..
Constructing a suicide barrier for $25-$50 million dollars is just wrong. If the point is to save lives, $25-$50 million dollars could save literally 33,000,000 lives in Africa by providing anti-malarial drugs to children that contract the disease (a full dose of ASAQ is $.50 per child per day for 3 days). It makes no sense to place a higher value on the lives of the 38 people per year that jump from the Golden Gate Bridge than we do on 33 million Africans. If we are trying to save lives, let's get the most out of our money and save many, many more lives by providing clean drinking water, ART treatment, bed nets, food or anti-malarials to those suffering elsewhere. If we insist on saving lives only in California, then why don't we instead invest $25-$50 million dollars in stem cell research, cancer research or other lifesaving work that will ultimately save tens of thousands of Californians?
@ Bolinas, thank you for bringing your point up. I'm not thrilled with the idea of a fence. If "we" were to spend $50 million "to save lives" what are our other options, and what is the return on investment?
I'm really disappointed in the reporting on this topic without looking at more than just emotional responses.