After decades of advocacy, suicide deterrent finally comes to the Golden Gate Bridge

[seafoam1 3,031]

Go kill yourself, just don't do it here. Makes sense to me. I wouldn't want people killing themselves all around my area. Take it somewhere else. Or, even better, go get some help.

But do they really think it's a "deterrent" to suicide as stated in the title? Nobody in the country kills themselves in other ways? "Oh no, I can't do it off the bridge? So I guess I'll just change who I am and enjoy life now." 

And then this..."Public comments from families who had lost a loved one said, 'If you had built something, my child would still be alive."   

I can imagine someone saying that right after they got the news of the death of a loved one, but, down the road they are still thinking that it was the bridge design (lacking a safety net) that killed their kid(s)?? 

And they can spend all this money and time on things like this to keep 2 people a month from killing themselves in this manner, but they won't support building a wall and adding more border patrol to turn away people at the border who bring in 100s of pounds of fentanyl that kills 1000s of people a year? 

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224271144/after-decades-of-advocacy-suicide-deterrent-finally-comes-to-the-golden-gate-bri

...

    "A motorist who was driving by happened to see my son go over the rail," says Kay James, Bishop's mother.

"I just felt so devastated," says James. "You feel like your world is coming to an end."

Her son's computer history revealed that he had researched the Golden Gate Bridge. It's an iconic landmark, but it's also a lethal one. About 2,000 people are estimated to have plunged to their death since 1937 – an average of about two people a month. Suicide prevention advocates have pushed for a deterrent for decades.

Now, after years of meetings and delays, their dreams are a reality.

On a crisp clear day in early January, Denis Mulligan, the general manager for the organization that oversees the bridge, leans out over the guardrail and points down at reddish orange beams connecting stainless steel silver net that looks like chain link fencing. It's suspended 20 feet below the pedestrian walkway. Mulligan says it will hurt if someone jumps – it's the same marine grade material used to hold the mast of sailboats in place.

"It's something that's made for this harsh environment," he says. "It is not soft. It is not springy. It's like a giant cheese grater."

The net extends 1.7 miles down both the west and east sides of the bridge. Mulligan says it's 95 percent complete.

 

"It's a massive undertaking," says Mulligan. "We have over seven football fields worth of netting stretched out on the Golden Gate Bridge."

None of which you can see from the roadway. Mulligan says the public did not want the net to detract from the bridge's beauty; it was a primary point of contention during the design phase.

"Public comments from families who had lost a loved one said, 'If you had built something, my child would still be alive.' While others said, 'Don't you dare change how the bridge looks,'" says Mulligan.

Finally, he says, the Golden Gate Bridge board concluded that they would build something if someone else paid for it. Federal highway grants covered the $224 million cost to construct the suicide barrier.

[5-Points 3,535]

Saw this on the news the other day. What's to stop somebody from climbing to the edge of the net and jumping from there? 

[seafoam1 3,031]

5 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Saw this on the news the other day. What's to stop somebody from climbing to the edge of the net and jumping from there? 

Beats me. Leave it to our liberal government to spend massively on waste when that money could be left in the hand of the citizens who actually worked for that money?

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

4 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Saw this on the news the other day. What's to stop somebody from climbing to the edge of the net and jumping from there? 

Sharpshooters.

[MDC 7,431]

Around 30 people per year jump from the GGB. Some people who would have jumped will find another method of suicide. Some others probably won’t. 

Imagine being mad about it.  

[seafoam1 3,031]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Around 30 people per year jump from the GGB. Some people who would have jumped will find another method of suicide. Some others probably won’t. 

Imagine being mad about it.  

Imagine not knowing anything about useless liberal government spending of hard earned taxpayer dollars. 

[squistion 2,203]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

Around 30 people per year jump from the GGB. Some people who would have jumped will find another method of suicide. Some others probably won’t. 

Imagine being mad about it.  

I know. You can't make this stuff up. 

Edited January 15, 2024 by squistion

[seafoam1 3,031]

6 minutes ago, squistion said:

I know. You can't make up this stuff.

It's the liberal residents and you idiot liberal supporters that want all that useless spending of taxpayer dollars you idiot. 

[squistion 2,203]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

It's the liberal residents and you idiot liberal supporters that want all that useless spending of taxpayer dollars you idiot. 

Saving lives is a useless spending of taxpayer dollars? Sad that anyone would believe that let alone say it out loud. SMH. 

[nobody 2,673]

Doesn't seem like good ROI on $224M if only 30 people per year jump.

Not to mention I'm sure some jackass is going to sue the city when the get jacked up landing in that net wrong.

Then the maintenance costs and rescue costs to get them out of the net.

[seafoam1 3,031]

10 minutes ago, squistion said:

Saving lives is a useless spending of taxpayer dollars? Sad that anyone would believe that let alone say it out loud. SMH. 

How is it "saving lives". 

[DonS 3,292]

There is a bridge in Seattle that folks liked to jump off of.  They installed fencing to prevent jumpers from splatting on the buildings down below.

Imagine being the janitor that had to clean up that mess! 

Edit: here's the spot over Adobe offices.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/QDjCDvYEaJvqSttH7

 

[squistion 2,203]

3 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

How is it "saving lives". 

Any suicide deterrent saves lives.

[seafoam1 3,031]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Any suicide deterrent saves lives.

It doesn't deter suicide. 

[squistion 2,203]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

It doesn't deter suicide. 

Yes, it does as some folks, given a little extra time to think it over, due to the deterrent, change their minds. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

They’re doing it on bridges everywhere.  So stupid.  Put the money into suicide prevention programs, or better yet - mental health.

[seafoam1 3,031]

2 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

They’re doing it on bridges everywhere.  So stupid.  Put the money into suicide prevention programs, or better yet - mental health.

Exactly. 

[Dizkneelande 1,101]

The real story is 224M for a net under a bridge they charge vehicles 10 bucks to cross. Government is one big grift and crooks are getting rich from it.

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Around 30 people per year jump from the GGB. Some people who would have jumped will find another method of suicide. Some others probably won’t. 

Imagine being mad about it.  

As I read about the topic it doesn't make sense, but all the stats and studies I've seen point to the bolded being true the vast majority of time.  

I've seen it repeated alot here and elsewhere - "well, if they don't use X they will just use Y"  most of the time that is not the case and methods don't a have the same rate of success 

[MDC 7,431]

57 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Imagine not knowing anything about useless liberal government spending of hard earned taxpayer dollars. 

Let’s say we be out of every 10 potential jumpers doesn’t commit suicide and the rest do. At a one-time cost of $220 they’ll have saved 3 people a year. That seems to be a decent benefit for the cost given than 2,000 people have jumped off the GGB since it was built.

Of all the wasteful spending to complain about, this is the thing that makes you mad.  

[nobody 2,673]

53 minutes ago, squistion said:

Saving lives is a useless spending of taxpayer dollars? Sad that anyone would believe that let alone say it out loud. SMH. 

You're asking the wrong question.  

If it cost a trillion dollars to save 1 life, would it be worth it?  No.

Leaders have to make these tough choices.  How can we best allocate resources to do the most good.  I'd argue that 224M for 30 lives a year is probably not a good investment.

[Herbivore 1,134]

6 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Saw this on the news the other day. What's to stop somebody from climbing to the edge of the net and jumping from there? 

ha..my first thought.

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

46 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

They’re doing it on bridges everywhere.  So stupid.  Put the money into suicide prevention programs, or better yet - mental health.

For once I agree with you 100%. 

[seafoam1 3,031]

9 minutes ago, MDC said:

Let’s say we be out of every 10 potential jumpers doesn’t commit suicide and the rest do. At a one-time cost of $220 they’ll have saved 3 people a year. That seems to be a decent benefit for the cost given than 2,000 people have jumped off the GGB since it was built.

Of all the wasteful spending to complain about, this is the thing that makes you mad.  

It's ineffective. Do you all not think that people who want to commit suicide don't weigh their options and flat out don't think about it all the time? 

They aren't trying to commit suicide in many ways because many ways it won't kill them. They choose the ways they think will kill them. If jumping off that bridge is not an option, then there are 1000s of other ways for them to turn to. 

You know damn well someone will come out and say it could have saved 2000 lives. When in reality, those 2000 people simply would have tried another way to kill themselves. Because that one may not be an option. Let me put it this way, more than 50,000 people killed themselves in 2023, which makes this massive spending a useless endeavor.

Wouldn't it be more humane to give assisted suicide to adults who don't want to live anymore rather than giving clean syringes to homeless drug addicts who are focked for life all bent over in the streets of philly? People should have the right to letting go. Maybe they wouldn't have to hide their pain from everyone. Or deal with a long slow death caused by numerous causes both mental and physical.

[gas 157]

49 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

They’re doing it on bridges everywhere.  So stupid.  Put the money into suicide prevention programs, or better yet - mental health.

And you MAGAts vote against mental health spending every chance you get.

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

6 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

It's ineffective. Do you all not think that people who want to commit suicide don't weigh their options and flat out don't think about it all the time? 

They aren't trying to commit suicide in many ways because many ways it won't kill them. They choose the ways they think will kill them. If jumping off that bridge is not an option, then there are 1000s of other ways for them to turn to. 

You know damn well someone will come out and say it could have saved 2000 lives. When in reality, those 2000 people simply would have tried another way to kill themselves. Because that one may not be an option. Let me put it this way, more than 50,000 people killed themselves in 2023, which makes this massive spending a useless endeavor.

Wouldn't it be more humane to give assisted suicide to adults who don't want to live anymore rather than giving clean syringes to homeless drug addicts who are focked for life all bent over in the streets of philly? People should have the right to letting go. Maybe they wouldn't have to hide their pain from everyone. Or deal with a long slow death caused by numerous causes both mental and physical.

In this issue, other than your instinctive “gotta blame the libs” shtick, you sound like a very reasonable fellow. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

7 minutes ago, gas said:

And you MAGAts vote against mental health spending every chance you get.

I’m not a MAGAT.  Anyone who votes against mental health spending is an idiot.  It’s a common thread running through just about every problem we face in society today.

[MDC 7,431]

59 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

It's ineffective. Do you all not think that people who want to commit suicide don't weigh their options and flat out don't think about it all the time? 

They aren't trying to commit suicide in many ways because many ways it won't kill them. They choose the ways they think will kill them. If jumping off that bridge is not an option, then there are 1000s of other ways for them to turn to. 

You know damn well someone will come out and say it could have saved 2000 lives. When in reality, those 2000 people simply would have tried another way to kill themselves. Because that one may not be an option. Let me put it this way, more than 50,000 people killed themselves in 2023, which makes this massive spending a useless endeavor.

Wouldn't it be more humane to give assisted suicide to adults who don't want to live anymore rather than giving clean syringes to homeless drug addicts who are focked for life all bent over in the streets of philly? People should have the right to letting go. Maybe they wouldn't have to hide their pain from everyone. Or deal with a long slow death caused by numerous causes both mental and physical.

I’m not interested in a gun debate, but there is evidence that waiting list periods for gun purchases reduce suicides. Maybe people who are in an intense period of depression make a quick bad decision if the means are right there?

Most people who would have jumped probably will find a new method of suicide. My guess is some small percentage won’t. If this was massive spending I‘d get the complaint but like I said, a one time cost of $220m seems worthwhile if it prevents 3-4 people from committing suicide per year. 

If we handed out exit bags to everyone who thought they wanted to die at any given moment we’d probably have way more than 50,000 suicides per years.

[seafoam1 3,031]

14 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

In this issue, other than your instinctive “gotta blame the libs” shtick, you sound like a very reasonable fellow. 

I blame the people who are blaming the bridge as well as the liberals who are begging for money from others for a cause they themselves won't support. It's sad for those family members, but they instinctively put blame on something else because they don't want to think they may have had a hand in it. It's normal at first, but you have to get over it. Even if you need counseling. But honestly, why the hell are they going to the federal government for the funds for something like that. Liberals don't care about the waste of taxpayer dollars. They came out themselves and said it's not worth them paying for it. But if they pick outsiders pockets, then it's all fine. Have some gut and stand up for not caving in to the people simply because they feel sorry for them. Everyone knows it's the wrong solution and is wasteful.

 

[seafoam1 3,031]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

I’m not interested in a gun debate, but there is evidence that waiting list periods for gun purchases reduce suicides. Maybe people who are in an intense period of depression make a quick bad decision if the means are right there?

Most people who would have jumped probably will find a new method of suicide. My guess is some small percentage won’t. If this was done massive spending I‘d get the complaint but like I said, a one time cost of $220m seems worthwhile if it prevents 3-4 people from committing suicide per year. 

If we handed out exit bags to everyone who thought they wanted to die at any given moment we’d probably have way more than 50,000 suicides per years.

A waiting period for assisted suicide is fine with me. 

[squistion 2,203]

5 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I blame the people who are blaming the bridge as well as the liberals who are begging for money from others for a cause they themselves won't support. It's sad for those family members, but they instinctively put blame on something else because they don't want to think they may have had a hand in it. It's normal at first, but you have to get over it. Even if you need counseling. But honestly, why the hell are they going to the federal government for the funds for something like that. Liberals don't care about the waste of taxpayer dollars. They came out themselves and said it's not worth them paying for it. But if they pick outsiders pockets, then it's all fine. Have some gut and stand up for not caving in to the people simply because they feel sorry for them. Everyone knows it's the wrong solution and is wasteful.

Actually they do, but in this instance I imagine that most liberals probably don't view this as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[seafoam1 3,031]

55 minutes ago, squistion said:

Actually they do, but in this instance I imagine that most liberals probably don't view this as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

And that's the problem. It's like putting $2000 tires on a 1995 beat up honda civic. The tires are worth more than the car and all you did was waste the money.

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

I’m not interested in a gun debate, but there is evidence that waiting list periods for gun purchases reduce suicides. Maybe people who are in an intense period of depression make a quick bad decision if the means are right there?

Most people who would have jumped probably will find a new method of suicide. My guess is some small percentage won’t. If this was massive spending I‘d get the complaint but like I said, a one time cost of $220m seems worthwhile if it prevents 3-4 people from committing suicide per year. 

If we handed out exit bags to everyone who thought they wanted to die at any given moment we’d probably have way more than 50,000 suicides per years.

This isn't the case.  It's most, which is why some focus on measures like this.  It's also why the gun advocates don't want to focus on suicides.  

You posted correctly in the - it's most often an impulse decision, most don't choose other methods, and most don't reattempt after a failed try.  

[nobody 2,673]

 If the goal is to save 30 lives a year, it would probably be better to close the southern border.  I'm sure way more than 30 people a year are killed by illegals.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

I find a certain beauty in an end of life decision being carried out by free fall off of a beautiful bridge in an inspiring spot.

[Stryker Ryker 188]

3 hours ago, Patented Phil said:

They’re doing it on bridges everywhere.  So stupid.  Put the money into suicide prevention programs, or better yet - mental health.

This. Anything else is just a waste of money to appear as if they’re doing something. But even they said they won’t pay for it so that tells you just how little they care

[MDC 7,431]

24 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

This isn't the case.  It's most,/b] which is why some focus on measures like this.  It's also why the gun advocates don't want to focus on suicides.  

You posted correctly in the - it's most often an impulse decision, most don't choose other methods, and most don't reattempt after a failed try.  

Even better if there’s some stats to back that up.  

[seafoam1 3,031]

21 minutes ago, MDC said:

Even better if there’s some stats to back that up.  

So lets see the stats that supported the 100s of millions in spending for this one bridge over mental health services as a whole.

[BeenHereBefore 1,525]

They should have gave The Zodiac Killer a Purge license.

[squistion 2,203]

37 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I find a certain beauty in an end of life decision being carried out by free fall off of a beautiful bridge in an inspiring spot.

Not so beautiful when they hit the water at about 75 mph.