Golden Gate Suicide Net : OMG Pie

[kirbywizard]

Link to original post: Golden Gate Suicide Net, I Dislike The Idea

The Golden Gate bridge is considered the world's most popular place to commit suicide. Many people take a bus, or rental car to the bridge to commit suicide .It is rather easy with no real barrier to stop anyone from jumping off the bridge, and then reaching 76 miles per hour before hitting the water. At those speeds the water is like concrete usually doing an instant death. There is a small amount of people that actually survive the jump, and then swim back ashore for medical aid. The total amount of spotted suicides is a large amount of 2100 .To prevent jumpers on the bridge their have been signs posted, and even suicide telephone hot lines can be found all across the bridge. The bridge is also closed during the night to pedestrian, but is still open to bicyclist.

Many ideas of putting up some sort of suicide barrier on the bridge to help prevent jumpers, but the majority of ideas have been stopped due to budget, and environmental issues that they could cause. But in the recent years the idea of building a net on the bridge to prevent jumpers has gained a large amount of momentum to be approved. However the amount of money for teh construction of this net may be put on hold due to the large cost it would cost to have it installed. There is a large controversy if the net would be successful in preventing suicide. It will cost a total of 50,000,000 dollars to complete

If the net is built ( may take two years top) then it would provide a mostly impossible way of jumping of the bridge to commit suicide. This in general will stop the amount of suicide on the bridge by jumping. Suicide can be said to take place after a large impulse to commit suicide takes place. This impulse is said to usually take place after a negative event from family life, business, or shocking event. Unable to find another method of escape some commit suicide for an answer to their problem.

The majority of people that acted on impulse commit suicide by more lethal means such as jumping in front of traffic, jumping from large heights, and firearm. However not all suicide is acted on impulse, there have been many suicides that were committed after a large amount o f planning to do it. This type of suicide is usually accomplished by drug overdose,wrist cutting, or hanging. So by a regular look this would decrease the amount of suicides when it comes to impulse, but that is only counting on the bridge itself. Eliminating one way of easy suicide can help many suicidal people from killing themselves for a certain amount of time. The main reason why I am not saying permanently is because the majority of suicidees also usually suffer from Depression. A problem that is rather hard to cure through physical, and medical means. A person that would have committed an impulse suicide on the bridge will most likely also have depression. Which means the persons risk of committing at a later point is still very high. So building a net can prevent suicide but impulsive ones, but this does not them from preventing suicide in another location or through other means. Risk of suicide can also increase by druge abuse, and alcohol abuse.

I like that they are trying to prevent suicide on the bridge, and hopefully ingeneral, but I don't think something worth fifty million dollars should be put on the bridge when we hardly have enough money to cope with the large amount of closing schools in California. I live in the Bay Area and I find it sad that so much money isn't being put to the large amount of closing schools, or even putting a barrier on the bridge to separate both lanes from each other. Help reducing the amount of collisions on the bridge. I don't want to put a price on a person's life, but I feel that the money could be spent differently or a different barrier can be put in it's place.

 

[Falconv1.0]

**** wow, that much money to stop people from killing themselves in one particular money. I love our government don't you?

 

[El Nino]

Because aesthetics matter more than human lives, apparently.

It may be a bad idea, but I don't agree with the reasons you're giving.

If you've ever sat down and tried to come up with a systematic approach to handling suicide, you'll know how difficult it is. Yes, a net will not fix it, but neither do prisons stop crime. It's just a patch on the surface of a deeper wound, but, really, patches are all we've got right now.

 

[kirbywizard]

Because aesthetics matter more than human lives, apparently.

It may be a bad idea, but I don't agree with the reasons you're giving.

If you've ever sat down and tried to come up with a systematic approach to handling suicide, you'll know how difficult it is. Yes, a net will not fix it, but neither do prisons stop crime. It's just a patch on the surface of a deeper wound, but, really, patches are all we've got right now.

There were many cheaper approaches then such an expensive net.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Prisons have an effect on minor criminals, and for crazy people, well, we need to either get them away from society ooooooorrrrr line them against a wall and shoot them.

Now for suicide, **** dude, this is so much money to make a net and maintain it when it will really achieve nothing, unless people are stupid enough to think "****, THEY HAVE A NET, HOW EVER SHALL I END MY MISERABLE LIFE NOW". If prison didn't exist, **** I probably would have killed someone by now, prison's actually serve a good purpose, this does more harm than good.

 

[kirbywizard]

Prison's are a lot stronger deterrent for minor criminals, and for crazy people, well, we need to either get them away from society ooooooorrrrr line them against a wall and shoot them.

Now for suicide, **** dude, this is so much money to make a net and maintain it when it will really achieve nothing, unless people are stupid enough to think "****, THEY HAVE A NET, HOW EVER SHALL I END MY MISERABLE LIFE NOW". If prison didn't exist, **** I probably would have killed someone by now, prison's actually serve a good purpose, this does more harm than good.

Prison has a tendency to make small time offenders into harden criminals and is also a breeding ground for gangs, and rapist. I think programs like house arrest have been more effective for small time offenders.

 

[El Nino]

There were many cheaper approaches then such an expensive net.

Your blog only mentions it in passing. The primary focus was on the aesthetics. That seems to be your main objection, not cost.

Edit:

If prison didn't exist, **** I probably would have killed someone by now

I used to say that all the time. Looking back, I don't think I ever meant it.

this does more harm than good.

It does harm by adding costs to an already strained state budget, and that has to be balanced out by a potential gain that we can only speculate at this point.

As for suicide prevention itself, I don't see it doing any more harm than being not very effective, which is about on par with everything else we have (from therapy to drugs).

I prioritize both human life and economics above aesthetics. And, yes, that's just me, but w/e.

 

[kirbywizard]

Your blog only mentions it in passing. The primary focus was on the aesthetics. That seems to be your main objection, not cost.

I suppose your right.

Just wanted to right about something happening in my area that I have strong feelings towards.

 

[El Nino]

It's okay. I have strong personal feelings towards this subject too.

You look at the bridge, I look at the suicide. I'm sure we both have our reasons.

 

[Falconv1.0]

See I don't care about the bridge's looks, if this like, actually helped prevent suicide I'd be for it, I strongly doubt it will.

 

[kirbywizard]

I just wish there was a way to prevent suicide effectively but that is easier said then done.

Maybe a hug patrol that gives hugs to people on the bridge? ( Stupid Idea I know)


Edit: I care more about the suicide prevention then the bridge, I guess it just came out wrong on my blog.

 

[El Nino]

Maybe a hug patrol that gives hugs to people on the bridge?

No that would turn people gay. We can't be having that.

Edit:

if this like, actually helped prevent suicide I'd be for it, I strongly doubt it will.

I don't know if it will or not. The way I see it, only people can be the safety net; these mechanical devices (not including medication) are secondary.

 

[kirbywizard]

No that would turn people gay. We can't be having that.

I'm sure that school from another blog would have a problem with it

I don't know if it will or not. The way I see it, only people can be the safety net; these mechanical devices (not including medication) are secondary.

A physical wall can't stop a mental missile.

Also more recent uncovered studies show that those anti-depression pills only work slightly better then a dummy pill.

 

[cookieM0Nster]

I live in the bay area too! :D

I actually approve of the net. It won't prevent a ton of people from suiciding, but when they look down and see the net, they will think about what they are doing. If you did not build the net, it's just saving money in exchange for human lives, which is terrible.

 

[Falconv1.0]

You're being waaaay too optimistic about it.

 

[Jim Morrison]

This idea is pretty dumb.

 

[mountain_tiger]

[COLOR="#FFCBA"]When I saw the topic title, I immediately thought of Heaven's Gate (it was basically a UFO suicide cult. Strangely enough their website is still running, even though the suicides were like... 13 years ago).

Anyway, at the risk of potentially sounding insensitive, IMO suicide isn't always such a bad thing. If someone has a mental disorder, then yes work should be done to try and improve their condition, but if someone is capable of thinking rationally and making sound decisions for themselves, and decides that they want to end their life (for whatever reason), then why is that such a bad thing? So long as they don't kill anyone else in the process (e.g. with a forced car crash or something), it's their choice as to whether or not they want to live. Forcing someone to live when they don't want to, I would say, is worse than letting them die.

Think about it. Say someone in their late 30s decides, through evaluating themselves and their life carefully, to commit suicide, because they cannot bear the way they think and how they are. What would be crueller: letting them die and end their internal anguish forever, or pressuring them into living for another 40 or so years in a life that they cannot stand?

I wouldn't say suicide is the right choice if you can help it, but if you feel that you really can't stand life, then that's the person's choice.[/COLOR]

 

[SuperBowser]

It will prevent suicides.

 

[Fatmanonice]

It will prevent suicides.

From jumping off the bridge. That won't stop them from slitting their wrists in the bathtub, hanging themselves, mixing sleeping pills with alcohol, etc. There are so many alternatives that they could take. I'm for preventing people from commiting suicide but how about psych clinics and education on the matter and to help people prevent it rather than creating a giant, freakishly expensive net that will only have people look for another of thousands of options to kill themself.

 

[SuperBowser]

Except a lot of suicides are done on spur of the moment.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Except a lot of suicides are done on spur of the moment.

Wait, I misread this.

 

[SuperBowser]

It's an evidence-based measure.

http://www.bridgerail.org/pdf/Barrier_effectiveness_web.pdf
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/190/3/266
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0004867010060501?cookieSet=1&journalCode=anp

 

[TP]

Am I the only one who is thinking "It would be so much fun to jump off and get caught by the net"?

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Am I the only one who is thinking "It would be so much fun to jump off and get caught by the net"?

I just realized that...

 

[kirbywizard]

I just realized that...

Well I guess that's one of the positive thing about it.

 

[El Nino]

[COLOR="#FFCBA"]Forcing someone to live when they don't want to, I would say, is worse than letting them die.[/COLOR]

I agree.

It's an evidence-based measure.

http://www.bridgerail.org/pdf/Barrier_effectiveness_web.pdf
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/190/3/266
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0004867010060501?cookieSet=1&journalCode=anp

What I get from that is this:

Pros:
1) Suicide barriers act as deterrents by removing one less site a person could jump from and die. If your city has three bridges, and one has a suicide net, that leaves you with only two other options. The chances of you being close to one at the right moment when you finally give in your impulses is now lowered, by however much.

2) It may effect the overall suicide rate because jumping is the most lethal method, and the number of bridges with nets in any given area are the one thing that a city or government can control, as opposed to other things like the availability of razor blades and rope.

Cons:
1) The sample sizes in those studies are small, and the time frame is also small. There's evidence of a possible trend, but it's not definite. It's hard to say, if only 4 or 5 years have passed since a barrier was installed, whether the sudden decrease is a long-term effect or a short-term one.

2) Those studies are site-specific and deal only with jumping. They don't comment much on overall suicides.

3) #2 in the Pros is speculation.

4) The second study from BJ Psych shows evidence of decreasing suicides from jumping in male patients only.

Am I the only one who is thinking "It would be so much fun to jump off and get caught by the net"?

Knowing the net is there would take the thrill out of it, I'm sure.

Or maybe that's just me.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Nah, it would still be mad fun.

 

[SuperBowser]

I'm too lazy to find better studies. But there are some. I think there's a very good one for Japan that showed a decrease in overall number of suicides when they added preventative measures. I suppose golden gate would be a good one if this measure is ever introduced.

But either way, it's well documented that many suicides are done on impulse. Removing opportunities to act on those impulses is only logical and there isn't any evidence to support the claim that such people will kill themselves anyway if you stop them jumping. I think the second study does state that less people killed themselves by jumping overall (though it is a small sample size). It doesn't matter if it only reduces male or female deaths - less people killed themselves.

Have you ever noticed there's a limit to the amount of paracetamol/aspirin you can but over the counter? The reason is to prevent people buying overdoses to kill themselves. People also claimed back then that a determined individual would just go to another shop to get themselves the lethal dose; you are just inconveniencing everybody else! But the statistics didn't lie - suicide rate most certainly did go down because killing yourself by overdose was no longer easy.

I mean, you can be against the idea for other reasons like aesthetics or money. But I think claiming that these people will die anyway is false.

 

[El Nino]

But either way, it's well documented that many suicides are done on impulse.

Yes, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea by the way that statement is phrased. Suicides are done on impulse, but they are planned out in advance. People have been thinking about it for a long time before they do it. They just put it off day after day, until the day comes when the right impulse strikes.

So, it's both planning and impulse.

People also claimed back then that a determined individual would just go to another shop to get themselves the lethal dose; you are just inconveniencing everybody else! But the statistics didn't lie - suicide rate most certainly did go down because killing yourself by overdose was no longer easy.

Well, I think they're right that a "determined individual" would still do it. But there are some people more likely to act on impulse, and they would be deterred by such measures. I guess it'd help to recognize that suicidal behavior comes in different forms.

I mean, you can be against the idea for other reasons like aesthetics or money. But I think claiming that these people will die anyway is false.

I think you're half-right.

Determent is "postponement." And suicidal tendencies don't go away once a person is deterred. Those thoughts will keep coming back, and next time they'll factor the net into account, and they may not go to the bridge.

And sometimes postponement can last 5-10 years. When it happens, it can be in a place and in a way that you least expect it. Studies that gather statistics would have to go for a time at the length of a person's lifetime. Because people carry the impulse for that long.

The "impulse" isn't "spur of the moment," I don't think. I think it's an impulse withheld for years.

I mean, I suppose it's good that a barrier buys people time, but that time is useless without other measures that address the root of the issue. I think the net may have marginal effects, but for the price tag, I have to wonder if that money can't be better spent.

 

[kirbywizard]

I have to wonder if that money can't be better spent.

*Cough* Save the large amount of closing schools in the bay area * Cough*
* Cough* Putting up a barrier to separate lanes on the bridge * Cough*

 

[Majority]

As serious as suicide is, this idea is really funny.

 

[kirbywizard]

As serious as suicide is, this idea is really funny.

Well at least it will catch any trash people throw out.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

This is going to end up as a tour attraction in the future.

 

[SuperBowser]

oops messed my post up

 

[SuperBowser]

Yes, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea by the way that statement is phrased. Suicides are done on impulse, but they are planned out in advance. People have been thinking about it for a long time before they do it. They just put it off day after day, until the day comes when the right impulse strikes.

I don't think you can summarize all suicides like that. The same way you can't generalize most issues.

Well, I think they're right that a "determined individual" would still do it. But there are some people more likely to act on impulse, and they would be deterred by such measures. I guess it'd help to recognize that suicidal behavior comes in different forms.

Yes, but it doesn't matter - that is one subset of individuals who commit suicide. My point is less people will kill themselves, not everyone who suicides will be saved.

I think you're half-right.

Determent is "postponement." And suicidal tendencies don't go away once a person is deterred. Those thoughts will keep coming back, and next time they'll factor the net into account, and they may not go to the bridge.

And sometimes postponement can last 5-10 years. When it happens, it can be in a place and in a way that you least expect it. Studies that gather statistics would have to go for a time at the length of a person's lifetime. Because people carry the impulse for that long.

The "impulse" isn't "spur of the moment," I don't think. I think it's an impulse withheld for years.

I mean, I suppose it's good that a barrier buys people time, but that time is useless without other measures that address the root of the issue. I think the net may have marginal effects, but for the price tag, I have to wonder if that money can't be better spent.

The impulse to jump off a bridge or throw yourself in front of a train can be very much a ''spur of the moment'' thing. Sure, they may have already been thinking about suicide. But they didn't necessarily go to the bridge or the train to jump. It is just something that many of them considered when the situation arrived.

Lots of suicide cases aren't things that planned for months or years. Sometimes it is just after a break up. Or loss of job. Or being bullied. Or some other catastrophic event that just happenned in their lives. Stop them from jumping at the time and they'll have a chance to cool off and reassess their whole situation in a few days. That might be (and probably is for a good number) all it takes for them to not kill themselves.

As I said, you can disagree with this barrier on an economic level. But saying it won't reduce the number of deaths is a bit of a tall order. Even ignoring my above examples, the longer someone is alive the more time there is to save them, no? Depression is recognized much better these days (doctors are much more aware of it now, and the general population) and lots of other measures are in place to catch people.

 

[El Nino]

Lots of suicide cases aren't things that planned for months or years. Sometimes it is just after a break up. Or loss of job. Or being bullied. Or some other catastrophic event that just happenned in their lives. Stop them from jumping at the time and they'll have a chance to cool off and reassess their whole situation in a few days. That might be (and probably is for a good number) all it takes for them to not kill themselves.

I wonder if we are looking at different sources, or if we just have different interpretations of the same sources.

In my understanding, break-ups and loss of a job are events that can act as "triggers." But moderate to severe clinical depression is a permanent condition. A trigger is what sets off a land mine, but the mine is always there. It doesn't even have to be a catastrophic event. A suicide after a traumatic event would make too much sense, and if depression made sense, it wouldn't be a mental illness.

One indirect cause of death by suicide is actually a period of happiness. Because when we're happy, we tend to not feel inclined to keep up with therapy sessions or medication. Then the next time we trip over a minor complication in everyday life, that complication hits us at ten times its normal force.

But saying it won't reduce the number of deaths is a bit of a tall order.

I agree. I think my skepticism comes from looking at the time frame. If we were to follow the lives of specific patients deterred from jumping from a bridge, how long would they live? Did the act of deterring them allow them to actually survive for a significant amount of time? Or did the illness catch up with them in 5 or 10 years? If they were deterred for only 5 years or so, and ended up dying by suicide later, do we still count that as "effective"?

Even ignoring my above examples, the longer someone is alive the more time there is to save them, no? Depression is recognized much better these days (doctors are much more aware of it now, and the general population) and lots of other measures are in place to catch people.

I would like to agree, but I think I'm just not sure. Maybe I'm just being a pessimist. I just don't find society (at least in the U.S.) very sympathetic towards people with depression. I have to factor personal bias into that outlook though.

Edit:

*Cough* Save the large amount of closing schools in the bay area * Cough*

More like overhauling the education system entirely, considering that a lot of ethnic minorities go to schools that serve as drop-out zones/gang recruitment centers. But, haha, politicians have been talking about "better education" since I was a wee tyke. And now, they're still just talking.

 

[SuperBowser]

I wonder if we are looking at different sources, or if we just have different interpretations of the same sources.

Hmm, I guess we have. I guess I should look up follow up studies of attempted suicide patients, but from a quick glance it looks like a good number live at least another decade without another attempt.

Perhaps I'm biased because I've met and spoken with patients that attempted suicide. There was one woman who was diagnosed with HIV a long time ago. The day it happenned, she left the doctor's office in tears and took it as a death sentence. On her way home she waited at a train station. There was no barrier at that station. She didn't plan to kill herself that day, but when she saw the trains coming and going she seriously considered it. Luckily for her, another man saw her and noticed something was wrong. The simple act of asking ''Are you ok?'' stopped her and she honestly doesn't know what would have happenned otherwise that day.

Of course, the next few years were very difficult for her as you can imagine but she's alive. Now she's living a full life with a family and her own children.

While it's true most people who commit suicide are depressed, there tends to still be a precipitating factor that ''triggered'' the course of events shortly before their death. When people are in this state I really do think barriers (or a net) have a role in preventing death.

 

[DTP]

You know, this net really isn't a bad idea.

It will effectively prevent people from jumping off the bridge, which is good.
Sure, it doesn't prevent people from jumping off off other bridges or getting creative with their suicide attempts, but that's not the purpose of this net.
If you think about it, people really wouldn't want the Golden Gate bridge to be primarily known for the amount of people that jump off if it every year.

It seems like this whole net idea is to mainly prevent the bridge (and in part, the city) from obtaining a bad image rather than to prevent suicide.

I don't know, maybe I'm over-thinking this.




I apologize in advance if I'm just repeating what someone else already said. I didn't read all of the previous posts.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Well, spending 50 million dollars of tax payer money to get rid of a supposed bad image of the bridge seems like a splendid plan.

 

[DTP]

I was just throwing ideas out there.

Of course I didn't say that was their only reason for wanting to put up this net, that would be silly. It just might be a bigger one than most people initially think about.