SFist: Golden Gate Bridge Barriers Approved

MalcoveMagnesia

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:18:37 -0800

Shouldn't be long until commuters start paying $25 tolls to fund the bridge's new bells & whistles (the suicide net & lane barriers). Glad I don't have to drive over that thing more than once every couple months.

spidra

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:42:00 -0800

It's a waste of money. I've thought of committing suicide a couple times a year since my late teens. I've weighed methods and consequences. Putting a net up is a typical bs solution proposed by those who don't suffer from depression and have little understanding of the impulse to commit suicide. If someone wants to commit suicide, no one can stop them forever. 40 - 50 million could endow a center for treating depression, could be used to improve services and infrastructure so that people's daily lives aren't such that they want to end it all.

ThisistheEnd

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:24:04 -0800

I am not even going to attempt to understand this decision. I ran across this bridge and back 3 times a week while I was stationed at the Presidio. I cannot even begin to understand how you can say 35 people dying is worth 50 million startup and 100K maintenance to have this eyesore put on such a majestic piece of architecture. We do nothing to stop the killing of innocents In Iraq......but we want to stop 35 people a year from killing themselves. How grossly pathetic is this? I shall not even mention Darfur and the travesty that is happening as I type this and we do NOTHING. But a few cool folks decide they have had enough of life and want a nice view as they face their maker and we all cry boo-hoo. Well, I say F-You. If they want to die, let them, who are you to play god and say NO. Especially at that cost. How much health care, housing and just plain food to those in need could this provide......do the math! Anyone who puts the few measely (35) lives ahead of the thousands you could help with that money is just plain selfish and narcicistic. I am ashamed to say San Francisco is my favorite place in all this world, and I do not even reside there anymore. Shame on you who voted for this with such short sightedness to not see where that money could be spent far better. Kudos to all who get to the bridge before the construction begins and leap......I pray for a mass protest against this waste of resources, by those who feel it is their right to jump. Then maybe these "council" members will remember they are not GOD. And stop playing GOD! Spend this money in better ways and help SO many more who want and need help.....not those who are not asking help! Peace to all!

Tendernob

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:25:13 -0800

That New Yorker article is moronic, ill-informed, and pointless. I know of absolutely no one in SF who has jumped, who has a phobia of bridges, or who ignores suicide as a taboo subject. I don't think that writer has ever even been to California, or has ever met anyone who lives here. He just googled a bunch of bridge jumper stories. This net idea really pisses me off. What a waste and misdirection of taxpayer money. It will not prevent suicides--not a single one--and ultimately will just raise the bridge toll. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

largo01

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:06:28 -0800

Word. Also... what?! I doubt that many people have fear of crossing bridges.

doublegin

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:25:02 -0800

From the NY article: "Almost everyone in the Bay Area knows someone who has jumped, and it is perhaps not surprising that the most common fear among San Franciscans is gephyrophobia, the fear of crossing bridges." WTF? I've lived in the city my whole life and I certainly don't know anyone who's jumped.. and, I HATE Tad Friend. Why this guy who grew up/currently lives in the East Coast gets to write the "Letter From California" in the NY is beyond me.

largo01

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:31:09 -0800

sfrealist: What do you mean that is undeniably false? People who make spontaneous decisions do not get in their car and drive an hour or buy a plane ticket and fly 10 hours to get to the bridge. Spontaneous decisions occur when you have a terrible breakup and decide to cut your wrists in the bathtub. The reason, almost "undeniably" why the GG Bridge is such a great location for suicides, is because it is so monumental. It is a place where you plan to kill yourself. Barring the people living in the Presidio, the bridge is not a spontaneous location for suicide. And I hope I misunderstood you, but what is this about "good" people also getting depressed? Are you saying that some people deserve to die? I've had close friends kill themselves too. All I can say is this. I blamed myself for not being able to do anything, and wished something or someone would have stopped them, but at some point you've got to realize that there is nothing anyone could have done to save them.

largo01

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:22:18 -0800

well.. there is probably less of a chance of someone getting hit by a bridge jumper than a downtown building jumper. By putting up the net, that assures that no serious jumper will pick the GG Bridge as a location. They might then decide jumping out of their work office is a better idea. It seems like it would be better to pay a number of people to continuously walk across the bridge to stop jumpers. If they already do this, they should hire on more. It probably would cost less than it would cost to put up that net, and it would also create human intervention which is really what a jumper needs. I view those statistics with a grain of salt: Have you ever been in the awkward circumstance of trying to explain to your family why you tried to kill yourself? You don't want to depress your friends and relatives by telling them there was nothing they could/can do. I guarantee you that no surviving jumper will want to tell their parents/spounse/friends that they really wanted to die. It forces the surviving jumper to continue living based on the ultimate guilt trip--not wanting to hurt the feelings of those they love.

sissa

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:21:46 -0800

phlavor: I agree that more money to mental health services and suicide prevention would make more sense!! Has anyeone else checked out the drawing of the net? It kinda looks like someone could roll right off of it. Maybe it's just a bad drawing I saw? Why on earth is it so expensive?!

sfrealist

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:14:53 -0800

"however, the GGB is not a place people go to spontaneously kill themselves" That is undeniably false. Sometimes good people get depressed. As someone who has both lost friends to suicide and had friends survive attempts and live happily ever after, this barrier is a small price to pay.

phlavor

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:12:49 -0800

1. $40 to $50 million = $60 to $70 million after the escalation caused by the inevitable delay in getting a multimillion dollar municipal project started. 2. I would rather see that money go to fund woefully under funded services in the city such as uh... well, mental health springs immediately to mind. Let's address the mental health of a few thousand people and get to them before they get to the bridge rather than (potentially) prevent a couple dozen from jumping. 3. As someone who has wrestled with depression most of his life, I'll say this. Let them jump. I'm glad that I never did but sometimes the pain IS too much. Life is precious but it's also your own to do with as you will and if I ever chose to take the plunge I would do it eyes wide open and I hope I wouldn't have to fight for the right.

sissa

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:04:25 -0800

largo01: People who have survived jumping from the bridge have expressed that in the moment after they jumped, they regretted it, and these people are now glad to be alive. The majority of people who have been talked out of jumping have managed to get through the crisis and gone on to lead fulfilling lives (read that New Yorker article!). I'm not saying a barrier means people will stop trying to kill themselves. Sure, they'll find an alternative. But at least they won't be jumping off the bridge. (hey, at least some innocent bystanders will be spared the experience.)

largo01

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:39:59 -0800

sissa: As we have established in previous conversations about this, yes, the net will prevent the spontaneous suicides. however, the GGB is not a place people go to spontaneously kill themselves. A great deal of planning goes into most of those suicides--mostly because hey! if you're gonna kill yourself, you might as well make it monumental--so the net will really not save the majority of people who plan on killing themselves. The GGB really is not one of those spontaneous suicide locations. I'm sure it happens sometimes, but most people who kill themselves on the bridge go to great lengths to plan out their suicide. By putting up the net, they will simply pick another location/method. Question: Does anyone know who will have to pay to retrieve people in the net? Will it be like ambulances where the victim is forced to pay ridicuous fees, adding insult to injury? Anyways, I'm totally going to start a "let's all jump" day, where people get their tax dollars worth and jump into the net for the fun of it.

manys

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:04:05 -0800

What's Officer Lobo doing on the right, there? Checking the landing zone?

sissa

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:52:46 -0800

"If someone does not want to be on this earth, you cannot force them to live. They will find another way to go. Will probably spend the rest of their life burdening society after they are scooped out of the net." This shows a complete lack of knowledge of depression and suicidal tendencies. Just because a person is suicidal at one time doesn't mean they always will be or won't lead productive lives once they get through the crisis. Yes, read that New Yorker article!

Sniffy

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:42:30 -0800

>Uh, doesn't this mean that all they have to do >now is hop in the net and roll over the side? People who are about to commit suicide generally are not in a rush to find the quickest-possible way. Look at the photo. That guy could've stepped off at any time, but he didn't did he? Suicide is not a rational process.

The Angry Young Man

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:11:42 -0800

Uh, doesn't this mean that all they have to do now is hop in the net and roll over the side? That adds what? A 30 second increase in the amount of time it takes the 14 year old Morrissey fan to plunge to his/her watery grave? That's hardly a big enough window to allow the Coast Guard-Suicide Prevention-Jumper Talker Police guy person to show up and talk them down. Are the fibers of the net made from some sort of sticky substance like fly strips that will keep the suicider suspended until help arrives? I don't get it. Wouldn't it have been cheaper (and even more romantic) to just hang up some signs around the bridge that say "Please don't jump and kill yourself! Gavin cares about YOU!"

izzyizzy

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:10:36 -0800

skibu Read an entire New Yorker article?? i'd rather jump.

cablecarsam

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:04:43 -0800

If someone does not want to be on this earth, you cannot force them to live. They will find another way to go. Will probably spend the rest of their life burdening society after they are scooped out of the net. Stupid move Gavin. Don't waste money on this, help the needy and jobless. Now the bridge will be just dang ugly!

skibu666

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:04:32 -0800

For those that incorrectly think that a barrier would be useless because people will get around it or find some other way to do themselves in should read the New Yorker article http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013fa_fact

hollyMmm

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:56:09 -0800

okay, so...when the net somehow fails and a person falls through to their death, who wants to BET that the said person's family is going to sue the city for the person's death. And will most likely win.

morrissey

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:55:09 -0800

A barrier would be a good idea between the north and southbound lanes if it could be moved when they add and remove lanes during rush hours. A fixed barrier would not allow this. james

oskarv

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:53:06 -0800

dear god. that's a lot of money to spend on a NET. what a waste of my tax dollars. i'm all for paying my taxes and social services, but this is just dumb.

overheight1

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:48:19 -0800

they should spend a few spare bucks to post diving instructions for various suggested dives. And maybe drivers should have a set of placards numbered from 1-10 so they can get out of the car and judge the dive. It's only fair.

the_absentee

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:25:29 -0800

dacawa: totally agreed.

Generic

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:16:33 -0800

@ Akit Wait, what? Tranq darts? NOW you're talking. If I'd have known we were going to get that kind of footage I'd have been in favor of the net from the start.

dacawa

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:11:36 -0800

I'd rather see that money going toward a barrier between north and southbound traffic, for those folks who don't actually want to die.

GregShaw

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:01:56 -0800

You know I thought all this crap until his Tomness leaned on me on this and I actually had to vote on it. Yes, they did do this on that big tower in paris, btw, no, it's not just americans. Studies on the people who jump says their impulse suicides, not the people who prepare and plan a lot... and they say if you stop people from those kinds of suicides they tend not to go through with them another way. I don't know... isn't it worth a tacky net to save some nice kid's life?

yatdave

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:59:44 -0800

The new east span of the Bay Bridge currently under construction also has a pedestrian walkway/bikeway on the side. Will people not just move there? Are preventative measures being taken on that bridge?

largo01

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:55:01 -0800

Well I don't know about you, but I intend on getting my tax dollars worth out of this. Anyone up for some jumping after the net is installed?

the_absentee

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:53:52 -0800

This $#&@ would never fly in Europe. They don't spend million and millions on trying to protect people from themselves. Only in America...

Akit

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:53:11 -0800

Those cops better carry quick acting tranquilizer darts if they hit the net. That will stop them from moving along.

Joel

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:50:55 -0800

It will help prevent suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge; it will not prevent suicides.

travin

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:45:14 -0800

periqueblend, it may be easier to retrieve live body from the net but the problem with live bodies is that if they're determined they tend to keep moving. So a net is fairly useless.

Generic

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:43:11 -0800

Shit. Now I'll have to jump from the Bay Bridge. That Eastern span is so tacky.

hollyMmm

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:41:13 -0800

good point perique.

Akit

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:40:48 -0800

God, that photo is damn creepy.

Slappydafrog

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:38:59 -0800

Let 'em kill themselves where they want to, $40-50 million to add a net so they have to be scooped up and then allowed to go kill themselves elsewhere...swell.

periqueblend

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:35:05 -0800

From a strictly practical point of view, is it easier to retrieve a live body from the net or a dead one from the water?