Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Lt Gen Panda
17115 Followers
Rajasekaran
657 Followers
Art Thou Bored
2897 Followers
Carly Wilson
3025 Followers
Muhammad Ihsan
541 Followers
SleepingZombie
332 Followers
Sebastian Schmitt
339 Followers
juliusthecatAug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Your f**king pathetic excuse for an argument ain't supported by evidence, dumbass. When will idiotic dips**ts like you learn that "common sense," doesn't always play out in the real world?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
juliusthecatAug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
juliusthecatAug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
ravagedsoulAug 3, 2010
People who talk like you, and call others "dumbass" and "pathetic", make me want to kill myself. You're just such a caring human being.
Also, suicide is actually not illegal in most states.
stikytAug 4, 2010
sorry but if you're arguing that common sense doesn't apply in the real would YOU have to be the one that supplies the evidence.
demenerAug 4, 2010
If you've decided to commit suicide would you really stop to think "Is this legal?".
I doubt it, legal consequences mean nothing after death.
clonedAug 4, 2010
You know, the commenter below basically made the same point. But he wasn't a dick about it.
sepiidAug 4, 2010
you they will just take a smaller step towards the bigger step.
s**t leap down to the staging area to off your self please!
i dont think a little 20ft drop to a waiting ledge will stop folks from jumping. plus what type of lawsuits will there be for when some one jumps and breaks a leg or is paralized! it is the bridges fault ! PAY ME NOW!
hetmanAug 3, 2010
That is not exactly true. I will find the study. Basically if you can delay someone from killing themselfs even for an hour it drastically reduces the chance that they will continuie with there efforts. This is not the case all the time but it is sometimes.
lordskywalkerAug 3, 2010
Those cases are idiots wanting more attention who go about it in an idiotic way. Anyone serious isn't going to let a net get in the way.
hetmanAug 3, 2010
@lordskywalker from all the studies I have viewed they are still the majority of people who kill themselfs.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
their*
themselves*
Sorry.. this s**t really bugs me.
meatball402Aug 3, 2010
Until something else happens that makes them want to kill themselves. At best it will likely delay for a few days/months.
Not be physically able to kill yourself doesn't end the impulse that drives one to do it. To do that, it requires therapy and lots of help.
However, many people do not have health insurance, and even if they did, mental health isn't always covered, so many have little or no way to fix it themselves.
sanchomandovalAug 3, 2010
The problem is that the net doesn't actually delay them, since they won't consider the bridge as an option. I don't access to say, cyanide, but that lack of access wouldn't be a factor in delaying me if I decided to kill myself. The delay that stops people is usually when that delay is some kind of experience that causes you to want to live, like a person actually intervening.
jumboj3tAug 3, 2010
*their
haleymAug 4, 2010
@Meatball402:
More than one study of suicide barriers on bridges have involved monitoring the overall suicide rates in the areas surrounding the bridges for several month periods. They've consistently found a drop in *overall* suicide rates in the areas after barriers were installed, not just suicides at the bridges themselves. Interviews w/ attempted-suicide survivors have also shown that many such attempts come in moments of extreme, but temporary, emotional anguish, and are not frequently repeated if they fail.
mingkAug 4, 2010
When you're in mental anguish and you want to kill yourself, you find the way you want to kill yourself and go do it while you still feel this way. If you live San Fransisco, the Golden Gate bridge is a good idea. But if you life in the area, you're going to know that they're building a suicide barrier. So this is not going to be a good choice now. Suicidal people who would have picked the Golden Gate bridge will just pick another bridge or building first that doesn't have a suicide barrier.
This isn't going to stop anybody from killing themselves.
fastfuudAug 4, 2010
The Bridge (Trailer):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwl-Pa_QT0M
The Bridge (Full movie)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/95971/the-bridge
designerutahAug 4, 2010
Putting up barriers may stop a few suicides. Maybe that's worth it. But truth is that unless they seek counseling and find a way to learn to enjoy their life, at some point in the future they will try again, and will seek a new venue. That's the problem with the study that watched surrounding area suicides... it didn't watch for years to see if the rate rose back up. It may sound harsh, but barriers are *at best* short term deterrents. Long term, potential suicides will just find another method.
Wouldn't it be better to make suicide a legal process? Get a little free counseling, and if you still want it after the 10 day wait period, pay your $25 for a suicide packet?
haleymAug 4, 2010
@designerutah:
There are certainly many cases where individuals will be determined to end their lives and will find a way. I believe it's a bit of an over-generalization, though, to assume that all, or even most, people who attempt suicide are like this. It's well documented that suicidal people fall into two categories: those with chronic depression and suicidal thoughts, who may contemplate and plan suicides for years before attempting, and those who go through short phases of it in response to trauma, temporary hardships, etc., whose attempts tend to be impulsive, spontaneous acts born out of desperation to end the short-term pain they're experiencing. It's those in the latter category that these barriers will best help.
notigAug 4, 2010
Technically... this only delays someone from killing themself if they went to the bridge and didn't know about it beforehand. But with time everyone will know about it therefore it will not delay anyone from killing themselves since they will decide to do it another way first.
Think of how incredibly easy it would be to drown yourself. All you have to do is lie face down in a bathtub
gir53457Aug 5, 2010
@ Haleym
That's because those reports are local, meaning they either A: somehow discourage suicide at all or B: go somewhere else to die.
tyhoAug 3, 2010
@rocknog
Way to be a dick...
@juliousthecat
You are absolutely right. When I heard about this I thought "what a stupid idea".
I used to live in the Bay Area and people have been killing themselves on the Golden Gate for ages. If you'll notice on any map, the Golden Gate leaves San Francisco to the north, and to the east is the Bay Bridge, equally suitable for jumpers. Not to mention all the cliffs around that area.
"Each year, an average of 30 people jump off it"
"an estimated $45 million — to begin construction"
This is the problem with government, they can never look at this and say, "I think with $45,000,000 we can save a lot more than 30 people/year"
pagemapAug 3, 2010
Those people want to die, why spend $45,000,000 on them? They are wastes of human flesh.
t0rmentAug 4, 2010
Would you say that about a mother, father, sister, or son? Your lack of any compassion makes you the waste of flesh.
ineedanewsn1992Aug 4, 2010
If someone wishes to die and has refused to receive or seek help, who is to say what they should do with their lives?
Spending millions of dollars to try and control someone isn't going to work. It's just circumventing the real solution to the problem: getting these people to get help and be more honest with themselves and their loved ones.
t0rmentAug 4, 2010
Opposing a suicide barrier because it isn't a cost effective way to save lives is being a pragmatist. Opposing a suicide barrier because you believe people who want to commit suicide are not worthy of living is being an assh**e.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
torment: "Opposing a suicide barrier because you believe people who want to commit suicide are not worthy of living is being an assh**e." I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree to the extent that if someone is suicidal enough to go seeking a place to commit suicide by jumping, they've already shown they are willing to throw their lives away. Which then begs the question, "Why should we (society) spend any time or effort to change their minds?" It's one thing to be depressed. It's another to actually try and kill yourself. Seems there is some personal responsibility to seek professional help when your depression starts to get too bad. If they can't be bothered, why should we care?
demenerAug 4, 2010
designerutah:
You missed the part about them not having the means to see help didn't you?
Would the net save the lives of people who aren't trying to commit suicide? If the only people it would save are the suicidal the money would be better spent elsewhere, but if it's a legitimate safety concern then the nets would be a good idea.
martinvivesAug 4, 2010
A less clean one.
captininsanityAug 4, 2010
We need higher penalties to deter people from trying to kill themselves. I propose we allow the death penalty for attempted suicide!
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
There was this train in Japan. Popular suicide tool. Pissed off the government cuz everytime somebody suicided they had to stop the train for an hour while they cleaned the guts off the track. So alot of people were using the train for suicide and the train was getting stopped alot. Answer : new law, family of suicider gets slapped with fat fine.
xenuxenutsAug 4, 2010
did the fine work?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
hmmm, good question.
Wikipedia has stuff to say but does not enlighten on that particular point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Japan#Suicide
There's gotta be a study out there somewhere.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
Or just make it cheap, legal, and pain-free to suicide, and in a way that makes clean-up easy. Say... you have to go the local hospital morgue, go through a suicide interview, be offered professional counseling, but when you demand suicide, you pay your $25 fee, they have you undress and lay on the slab and then inject you. You're already prepped for processing. And while all this is going on, workers could be conducting autopsy's, prepping bodies, etc.
For those not really serious about suicide, the process might make them seek real help.
nyr14Aug 4, 2010
The effectiveness of the method is also very important--jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is more effective than taking pills. This is why men are more successful in committing suicide--they use guns and other violent methods in comparison to women (whom are more likely to attempt suicide).
colorsrunAug 4, 2010
"Near where I live there's a viaduct
Where people jump when they're out of luck
Raining down on the cars and trucks below
They've put a net there to catch their fall
Like it'll stop anyone at all
What they don't know is when nature calls, you go"
-Barenaked Ladies, "War on Drugs"
bowloframenAug 5, 2010
As others have pointed out, this isn't true by any means. Of course, some will find other ways to kill themselves, as you point out, but a surprising number of suicides are the results of impulsive actions that might've been prevented had there been some kind of barrier to slow down the decision making process. This is backed up by research as detailed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all
An excerpt:
In Northwest Washington stands a pretty neoclassical-style bridge named for one of the city’s most famous native sons, Duke Ellington. Running perpendicular to the Ellington, a stone’s throw away, is another bridge, the Taft. Both span Rock Creek, and even though they have virtually identical drops into the gorge below — about 125 feet — it is the Ellington that has always been notorious as Washington’s “suicide bridge.” By the 1980s, the four people who, on average, leapt from its stone balustrades each year accounted for half of all jumping suicides in the nation’s capital. The adjacent Taft, by contrast, averaged less than two.
After three people leapt from the Ellington in a single 10-day period in 1985, a consortium of civic groups lobbied for a suicide barrier to be erected on the span. Opponents to the plan, which included the National Trust for Historic Preservation, countered with the same argument that is made whenever a suicide barrier on a bridge or landmark building is proposed: that such barriers don’t really work, that those intent on killing themselves will merely go elsewhere. In the Ellington’s case, opponents had the added ammunition of pointing to the equally lethal Taft standing just yards away: if a barrier were placed on the Ellington, it was not at all hard to see exactly where thwarted jumpers would head.
Except the opponents were wrong. A study conducted five years after the Ellington barrier went up showed that while suicides at the Ellington were eliminated completely, the rate at the Taft barely changed, inching up from 1.7 to 2 deaths per year. What’s more, over the same five-year span, the total number of jumping suicides in Washington had decreased by 50 percent, or the precise percentage the Ellington once accounted for.
cococookyAug 3, 2010
Some will, but research has shown alot of suicides to be a short term impulse. Anything that gives these people a chance to re-evaluate the situation is a great thing.
It will save lives, one can only wonder why it wasnt done a long time ago.
adhomineeAug 4, 2010
Do you have a source? I'm not trying to be a dick or anything. I'm just curious and would like to read more about it.
cococookyAug 4, 2010
This is a link to an Australian Suicide Prevention Website, got some useful info on it: http://www.suicideprevention.com.au/pages/?id=52&tid=13
From the Statistics page linked above "For every death from suicide, it is estimated there are 10-30 times as many attempted suicides or episodes of deliberate self-harm."
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
That, in no way, suggests that "alot of suicides to be a short term impulse".
adhomineeAug 4, 2010
Found an article on the subject
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html
It seems to suggest that there are two types of suicide, impulsive and premeditated. It makes the distinction between the ease of throwing yourself off a bridge and say taking a bottle of pills.
I haven't finished reading it yet, but it seems like it'll be a good read.
cococookyAug 4, 2010
How you figure? you got say 30 people attempting suicide. at most 3 die, thats rest are not dead, now if you were serious about offing yourself, you go on and finish the job. the ones who didn't were only acting on a short term impulse.
If you really were interested in statistics, and not just trolling for a place to prove someone wrong you might have read the article i linked to, a whole page about suicide statistics?
FTA, same paragraph as quoted previously "It must be remembered that those who have attempted suicide are much more at risk than the rest of the population of eventually repeating the act, but dying on the next attempt. This is particularly the case for males who have attempted suicide and remained alive. It is estimated that 5% of such males will eventually die from suicide, and 2% of women who have survived deliberate self-harm will eventually die from suicide."
Ok, to make it more clear. If only 5% of males (2% female) who attempt suicide, go on to actually finish the job, thats 95% (98% female) of attempts to commit suicide that didn't actually kill themselves EVER, therefore the attempt they made must of been "a short term impulse"
snoogsAug 4, 2010
It reminds me of this suicide prevention method.
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/fatal_and_tragic.jpg
dragonbladevAug 4, 2010
ill be the dick, "YOU ARE A IDIOT"
they are wasting peoples money to make the world stupid proof, next we are going to wrap the world in bubble wrap to protect people from falling and hurting themselves. they should ask the people they are getting the money from if they actually want the bridge to be suicide proof, people just choose the golden gate bridge because its convenient, do u think we should build barriers on every building that's higher than two stories? Darwinism is essential to weed out the weak retards of our society.
choiboyAug 4, 2010
*an
dragonbladevAug 7, 2010
haha that was funny, my bad
soulglowAug 4, 2010
I saw The Bridge, and one of the survivors said a split second before he landed he realized he didn't really want to die. I wonder how many of the others felt the same.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
Because it's expensive, and a waste of money. Once it's up, all that will happen is potential suicides will look elsewhere. It could only possibly save lives during that period when people might be surprised the barriers are in place. After that, they will just use the other bridge, or a tall building. Bottom line here, the bad press from suicides will stop focusing on the bridge and will spread out. That's the only real long-term result. Oh, and more money to the bridge for maintenance.
mmysamaAug 4, 2010
Because the people whos lives will be saved don't want their lives to be saved.
badgerbusAug 5, 2010
You also have to keep in mind that people know this is being done, it's been a top in the bay area for a while.
What about all the people who start heading to the bridge with killing themself in mind but don't make it all the way before they turn back and go home. All those people will know about the net and may just do something at home, or jump in front of MUNI.
This may end up costing more lives than it saves.
knoxiouseduAug 3, 2010
It will certainly save lives, but I'm surprised no one has gotten in to a huff about it "de-beautifying" the bridge.
kibblesnbittsAug 3, 2010
Because anybody who will complain is a ****.
jeremiahjwAug 3, 2010
It's not exactly pretty in the first place
bohemeAug 4, 2010
You obviously don't live in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1999 radio personality Alex Bennet had a running bit on his show called '1000 by 2000' where he would announce any time the Golden Gate Bridge suicide number went up. His media attention brought the suicide factor into the light, and people started talking about erecting a suicide barrier. For the past 11 years, the argument has been 'saves lives' vs 'looks ugly'. So, to answer your question, LOTS of people have gotten into a huff about it "de-beautifying" the bridge; enough people to derail the project for 11 years.
angelbunnyAug 4, 2010
It is transparent so it doesn't really alter the look of the bridge. That and the new bay bridge being built will probably be the new 'beauty' of the sf/bay area when it is done.
jamc100Aug 4, 2010
Obviously you didn't read the entire article.
texmurphy02Aug 3, 2010
Well..........
.... nope, I think this one speaks for itself.
steviejanowskiAug 3, 2010
I think a barrier is a great idea but just to play devils advocate, couldn't they just jump off of the net that is only 20 FT below the bridge after they hit it? I live in SF and have no problems with altering the bridge to save lives but will a net really work?
janineeeAug 3, 2010
You've got a point. Hopefully after falling 20 feet they will say to themselves "Owe, I don't feel like falling anymore"
kibblesnbittsAug 3, 2010
If it ultimately saves just one life, it's worth it.
entroperAug 3, 2010
No, it isn't. There's an opportunity cost to spending that $5 million on this net. They could spend that $5 million on making dangerous intersections in the city safer, for example, and that would probably save more lives.
kibblesnbittsAug 3, 2010
The logical fallacy in opportunity cost is the fact that you're assuming if the $5 million didn't go into the safety net, it would definitely go into making dangerous intersections in the city safer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
entroperAug 4, 2010
No, I just threw that out there as an example. They could also do many other things, or nothing at all. But if their goal is to save lives, there are better ways to spend $5 million, which is why it's not worth it.
kibblesnbittsAug 4, 2010
Again, you make a fair point, but it's being spent on the net and there is no changing that. Therefore, if it the $5 million that is slated to save lives saves a life, it did its job.
I also thank you for not burying my response out of pure disagreement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ravagedsoulAug 4, 2010
The $5 million is for the initial study; the actual barrier is expected to cost $50 million.
realcoolguy9022Aug 4, 2010
Entroper makes the point, there are many more cost effective ways to save lives. Besides even at 5 million, you could have 2 people patrolling the bridge (assuming you could pay them $10 hourly) for at least 4 years. If it costs 50 million, you could have 2 people patrol the bridge for over 40 years. I say it's a waste.
mattdellAug 4, 2010
I was wondering the same thing. What's stopping them from jumping off the barrier?
djanakinAug 4, 2010
The net tangles them and they have to be freed by authorities.
quaxonAug 4, 2010
I live in SF too and was thinking if they did build a barrier i would just go jump off the bridge into it for fun. Saves a ton of money compared to bungie jumping and the like and the view is really nice!
k3rfuffl3Aug 4, 2010
Nice try young man, but it's nets all the way down.
crackerjack20Aug 3, 2010
I don't get it. They're spending $5 million on a net that will just catch the people and allow them to crawl over to the edge of the net and continue their fall. Unless the net is made of sticky spider-web like stuff that will hold them there till the cops arrive.
janineeeAug 3, 2010
You may be on to something . . . .
themazzterAug 4, 2010
Not really, then it would just catch dust and dirt and become not-sticky.
And it would catch small birds which would make lots of people angry.
eurynom0sAug 3, 2010
Hold on, I think I can help with that... *fapfapfap*
kornstalxAug 4, 2010
:|
stingwolfAug 4, 2010
If I fell into that net, I would most certainly not reconsider suicide.
gabacho2Aug 4, 2010
Annnnd Digg just jumped the shark
hyperionhkAug 4, 2010
I thought the same thing. It does mention it wraps them in a cocoon, so maybe they can't get out. Either way it sounds like a simple net does work, as the article mentions a cathedral using a similar net, and it went from 25 suicides per year, to 0 with the net installed.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
But the thing no one ever seems to notice is that those 25 suicides per year occurred somewhere else. They didn't choose not to suicide because of one net on one bridge or building. They just chose not to suicide on THAT building. That's the only real change. They went somewhere else to suicide.
cfuseAug 4, 2010
Have you tried climbing a net lately? They'll be plenty of time for the cops to turn up to that tasering party.
wjlaw100Aug 4, 2010
How about we just Electrify the net???
cfuseAug 5, 2010
And spoil their fun?
waitasecAug 4, 2010
$45 million to build. The initial $5 million was just to engineer and design.
thestrangebrewAug 4, 2010
Don't forget the cost for the EIR...
waitasecAug 4, 2010
1) EIR. Can't someone think of the seagulls. Oh for the sake of the seagulls!!!
2) Er... how exactly do you retrieve the person?
3) Don't forget to factor in the cost of entrapped seagulls and dummies stencil with the name "BUSTER"
rheaumeAug 4, 2010
Can somebody RTFA?
It traps you in a cocoon
esb82Aug 4, 2010
Falling into the net will mean certain death once Shelob moves in.
clonedAug 4, 2010
As I understood it, it will have a similar design to the original barrier. I think it will curve up and back to make it nearly impossible to climb.
lordskywalkerAug 3, 2010
Guess I'll have to throw myself into traffic instead...
spacem00seAug 3, 2010
But who will feed the sea lions now? /s
dadumtishAug 3, 2010
Well that's that problem solved. Good job guys!
(do i really need to end with a /s? )
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Stupid....
......but what do you expect from California?
branditaAug 3, 2010
I never got why the Golden Gate bridge was red. Just seems wrong.
alpinestars777Aug 3, 2010
WHY THE NAME GOLDEN GATE?
The Golden Gate Strait is the entrance to the San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean. The strait is approximately three-miles long by one-mile wide with currents ranging from 4.5 to 7.5 knots. It is generally accepted that the strait was named "Chrysopylae", or Golden Gate, by John C. Fremont, Captain, topographical Engineers of the U.S. Army circa 1846. It reminded him of a harbor in Instanbul named Chrysoceras or Golden Horn.
ravagedsoulAug 3, 2010
It's the color of the protective paint that was applied during construction. People got used to it and liked it, so it was kept as the final color.
It looks way better than the typical silver bridge, especially against the hills of the Marin Headlands.
whoreableAug 4, 2010
California is the "golden state". The basketball team sucks though. Well at least compared to the Lakers they do.
vonsopasAug 3, 2010
I know a way to prevent suicide...STOP DOING THIS REALITY SO DARN STARK!
ravagedsoulAug 3, 2010
How many people could $50 million help? People who lack basic medical care, or suffer from malnutrition, or just need just a little help getting out of a bad situation?
It's sad that people choose to kill themselves, but it *is* their choice. If you're going to spend the money (and I don't agree with spending it at all), spend it to help people who want, need and are ready to accept help.
Seems like society is only happy if we're forcing people to do/not do what they want; don't kill yourself, don't do drugs, etc.
neuralagentAug 4, 2010
Until you become so mentally unbalanced that you actually cannot control yourself, you should probably not comment as you just did. When this happens - even if you realize it's happening - it isn't exactly your choice, or can seem like you have no control and are completely hopeless. Do you even know what true hopelessness feels like???
This is a good idea, if you read up on the history of the bridge, it's actually quite a popular place to jump from, especially the scenic side.
Would the money go to other good causes? Yes. On the whole grand scale of things... at least the money is going to a good cause, it's not like it's being invested in weapons or war.
k3rfuffl3Aug 4, 2010
How much does society put into people considering education, health care, and a lot of other social services? If they kill themselves we'll never see any profit from whatever possible work they could've done had they lived into retirement age.
alpinestars777Aug 3, 2010
They acutally had a net for workers at the time of construction:
WHAT'S THE HALFWAY-TO-HELL CLUB?
The most conspicuous precaution was the safety net, suspended under the floor of the Bridge from end to end. During construction, the net saved the lives of 19 men who became known as the "Half-Way-to-Hell Club."
ieatskunkAug 3, 2010
"Why Is the Bay Area Building a Suicide Barrier? "
Because the Bay Area is a liberal circus. And in this liberal circus there is absolutely no accountability for your actions and everything wrong with you is someone else's fault (read: white men's fault).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Oh, look. Another uneducated R-tard displaying blatant, public ignorance for the world to see.
Keep living up to the claims I set for you idiots. I love it being proved right.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ieatskunkAug 4, 2010
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better....
supplysidejebusAug 4, 2010
The states with the highest suicide rates are typically the backwater, conservative Red states. Alaska is #1 (you betcha). California is all the way down the list at #43.
steelchickenAug 4, 2010
Alaska is #1 because of the very long winters and lack of sunlight, which effects mood. I would think someone with a more liberal sensibility would be more aware of the facts- oh wait, liberals argue based on feelings, my bad.
digg2point0Aug 4, 2010
Red States account for higher suicide rates.
Blue States account for more suicides total.... but also tend to have higher populations.
ieatskunkAug 4, 2010
The problem isnt the number of people that want to kill themselves. The problem is that CA thinks it has to stop them from doing it by spending millions that could be spent elsewhere.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jarysmAug 4, 2010
What an uncalled for politicization.
jgzmanAug 4, 2010
Steel Chicken: are you saying that it's not their fault? So, in Liberal land, it's not our fault, so we'll take steps to protect ourselves. In Conservative land, it's not your fault, and.... what? f**k you?
parrappaAug 3, 2010
"Why Is the Bay Area Building a Suicide Barrier?"
Maybe to prevent suicide?
oxidaneAug 4, 2010
Darn. well...I'll just find another bridge, or a window in a high-rise.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
And that is exactly what happens.
elwood_bluesAug 4, 2010
OK, so instead of jumping to your death, you must first jump onto a net and then jump to your death. OK, got it.
Kind of like the windows popup that says Are you sure you want to delete.
Good thoughts, but quite lame.
akchrsAug 4, 2010
There was a documentary called The Bridge about suicides on the Golden Gate. Some of the people would pace back and forth for quite a while before jumping. One of the guys put his hand on the railing and jumped immediately after walking out on the bridge like he was just hopping over a fence. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Did you read the article at all?
"This time around, the efforts were spurred by the release of the The Bridge, a 2006 documentary. Director Eric Steel and his crew spent a year shooting the bridge in 2004. They caught about two dozen people taking the fatal plunge on film. "As soon as I started this project I thought in my heart the right thing to do was to put up a barrier," Steel says. "It was just senseless that people were able to jump when they could be stopped." He says every time he showed his film at a film festival, the first question from the audience was always, "Why isn't there a barrier?""
digg2point0Aug 4, 2010
"Did you read the article at all?"
Do you know who you're replying to?
Of course someone like akchrs doesn't read the article. The title and submitter are enough for akchrs to go on.
akchrsAug 4, 2010
"Of course someone like akchrs doesn't read the article."
Sometimes I try though.
bille3Aug 4, 2010
I think they do not like to lose voters.
rowgerkAug 4, 2010
Also, consumers.
drmobutuAug 4, 2010
To save lives, in case Prop 19 fails...
whoreableAug 4, 2010
It says the net cocoons them after they jump. I wonder if it really wraps them up for easy removal and so they don't fight back against the rescuers.
heidenreich12Aug 4, 2010
Yeah, because California really has 5 million to spare for this.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Are you guys even reading the article? At all?
"But while there may be a new consensus for a suicide barrier in the Bay Area, it will likely take years to raise the funds necessary — an estimated $45 million — to begin construction."
pathouston22Aug 4, 2010
For some reason, I don't think California cares about having a balanced budget.
illinestAug 4, 2010
this is not worth the money. the 'impulse' will simply take these people elsewhere.
way to blow 5 million dollars. idiots.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Um, $45 million, maybe?
Did you read the article?
phialthomAug 4, 2010
please don't spend my money keep people from killing themselves. it's not my business.
k3rfuffl3Aug 4, 2010
You're right. It isn't your business. So shut the f**k up.
nullcodesAug 4, 2010
People who got taxed so this could get built wanna kill themselves now but can't.
kennykljAug 4, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
There is a documentary movie made largely of footage of suiciders on the bridge. It's utterly facinating, and not at all gruesome or exploitative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_%282006_film%29
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Excellent documentary. Here's a direct link to the website.
http://www.thebridge-themovie.com/new/index.html
laudermaleAug 4, 2010
Watch the entire documentary "The Bridge" for free on You Tube. It is so worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwsvRgFcFAg&playnext_from=QL&feature=bf_play&playnext=1
Or just the jumping highlights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG3UMb3uHe0&feature=fvsr
May all those who left this earth that way find peace.
prompelAug 4, 2010
If they want to jump, let them jump. Put up some diving boards.
slapdinger69Aug 4, 2010
nah , put up a pirate themed area where you can walk the plank!
designerutahAug 4, 2010
I like the idea of a high dive board. Add about 25 ft. to the bridge height, and have a big sign over it saying, "Watch the last step!"
/adapted from a Larry Niven novel
smeddAug 4, 2010
FTA: "$5 million in federal funds to engineer and design a suicide barrier: a stainless-steel net, which will hang 20 ft. below the bridge to catch and cocoon jumpers in midair."
After they hit it sounds liike they are stuck till someone gets them out.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Two years later, the California Highway Patrol officially asked the Golden Gate Bridge District to do something to stop the suicides.
lol, the bridge is causing suicide.
gazowAug 4, 2010
that looks fun as s**t, heck i might go jump now
oltpAug 4, 2010
Jumping off something really high seems like the most humane way to go, you wouldn't suffer much. Seems like other suicide methods like cutting wrists or overdose would be a lot more painful. Plus with people diving into water instead of pavement, there's very little chance they would hurt some random pedestrian, and there's no cleanup effort afterward.
I know it's a bit grim but I think of all the ways to commit suicide, jumping off the bridge is probably one of the best.
suricouAug 4, 2010
Balloon helium tank + plastic bag.
Avoid the cheap ones they sell as 'balloon gas.' That's actually helium mixed with air. There might be enough oxygen in that to stay alive, just about.
mredofcourseAug 4, 2010
But off the Golden Gate Bridge, there's a good chance you'll survive the initial impact...with severely broken bones, unable to swim as you drown or die from the cold water.
And as someone who boats and jetskis under the bridge quite often, I'm not so sure about the "little chance of hurting someone below".
esb82Aug 4, 2010
As if Frisco needed more air-time for "It's Raining Men".
mattbdAug 4, 2010
No, it'd be very painful, and probably not instantaneous. I used to deal with death claims on life insurance policies and the most common methods of suicide were hanging and carbon monoxide poisoning by sitting in your car with the engine going and a hosepipe from the exhaust into the window. Hanging's a bugger to get right at the best of times and if you're doing it yourself you're bound to c**k it up - you'll more likely than not end up strangling yourself. If I were to do it, it'd be the carbon monoxide.
endusAug 4, 2010
What a waste of money. If people want to kill themselves, let them.
Don't get me wrong, I have had my bouts with depression and am overwhelmingly sympathetic to people who feel like they need to commit suicide, but it seems to me like this money would be better spent on counciling services or, in the absence of the need for that, one of the other trillions of problems we have in this country. People can't find work, people are starving on the streets...and we're putting money in to people who want to off themselves. Physical barriers to prevent suicide is just a worthless waste of money.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
A fifth grade friend of mine tried to commit suicide by drinking water with chalk in it.
/coolstorybro
hetmanAug 4, 2010
It is bad plublicity also. How does suicide rates affect tourism? I want to see the golden gate bridge. I do not want to see someone jumping off of it.
tarantulusAug 4, 2010
I want to see someone jumping off it, that would be cool.
codecobaltAug 4, 2010
No offense but I think going home with a story of seeing a jumper would be a better story than just seeing the bridge.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
The bad publicity is the real reason behind this project. It's not to save lives. Truth is once people learn about the barrier, they'll just use the other bridge, or tall building. Reducing the publicity is the only measurable, long-term benefit.
nightsweatAug 4, 2010
In case Sarah Palin actually gets elected?
archangelzltAug 4, 2010
I don't think anybody who is commenting that this is a waste of taxpayer money really understands the nature of suicides. We try to prevent people from committing suicide because, really, most people would probably regret the decision if they live till the next day. And really, shouldn't the Golden Gate have SOME measure to prevent people from jumping down it when it was first built? We are simply adding what should have been there for more than seventy years to the bridge. But late is better than never I suppose.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
codecobaltAug 4, 2010
It's called a railing that goes up to about the middle of a grown mans chest. You're not "accidently" going over it as is. So yea the bridge has a safety feature already installed.
solkreAug 4, 2010
I'll already starting to write my recommendation for a even wider net, to catch the people who just continue from the first net. And by God if that doesn't work, we'll just tear down the whole damn bridge!
jridge327Aug 4, 2010
There are already too many f**king people. Let the volunteers jump.
Beep111Aug 4, 2010
Well if their life is such a living hell that they feel the need to kill themselves, then stopping them is keeping them in pain. If they want to die, don't they have the freedom to make their own choice about it?
kalvinbAug 4, 2010
Suicide is traumatic for those who witness it and the people in the suicide's life.
That's why it's illegal and why steps are taken to keep it from public view.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
The title is incorrect. They are not actually building it, the article says they are planning on designing it. It's not even technically designed yet.
FTA: committee voted July 28 to appropriate $5 million in federal funds to engineer and design a suicide barrier.
codecobaltAug 4, 2010
I can't believe how many of you are into this and think its a good thing. Saving lives that can't/don't want to help themselves.. yea they'll be valuable to society. REally what are you going to idiot proof everything?
paulpersonAug 4, 2010
You know... you are right. How about you tell that to my sister who tried jumping off the golden gate bridge. Not all people who want to commit suicide are "idiots". Who are we to judge whether some stranger has the right to live or die without knowing their mental status or current situation? Have YOU actually had to talk someone out of committing suicide or tried committing suicide yourself?
jgzmanAug 4, 2010
You are EXACTLY right. Who ARE we to judge weather or not a random stranger has the right to live or die?
By putting up this device, we are insisting that we do, in fact, have that right, and removing their opportunity to choose for themselves.
Reconsider your argument.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kylereAug 4, 2010
Let them jump.
darkstar3333Aug 4, 2010
Money better spent on suicide booths.
sychodelixAug 4, 2010
Honestly, I think putting a higher fence/barrier to where they can't jump at all would be a better bet, and probably cheaper. Just put some barbed wire on top of it so that if anyone does try to climb the fence so that they can jump, they'll rethink it REALLY quick.
darkmatter911Aug 4, 2010
Glad it is not my tax dollars being spent on this. What a waste.
vagrantwadeAug 4, 2010
People here keep saying they will find other ways to kill themselves, which is true, but a lot of studies show that most suicides happen quickly and most likely without much thought put into it. The people who think about it for a long time are usually the ones who don't end up doing it, or end up doing something stupid that just puts them in the hospital. That said, they should just offer human euthanasia for a cost and have the money go towards feeding starving children.
murrayc1968Aug 4, 2010
Here in my city, Halifax, NS, Canada, we have a bridge that people were using to commit suicide (an average of 15 each year) and in the last two years, they created their own suicide barrier. Basically, welded along the handrail of the walkway, are HUNDREDS of 1/2" diameter bars spaced 6" apart that are about 6' long and curl inward preventing anyone who is suicidal from climbing on top of the handrail and jumping off. They are a tad ugly (the bars, not the people jumping), but the upswing is that it gives the average person an extra sense of security in thinking they won't fall off the bridge accidentally.
diggcrusherAug 4, 2010
Am I the only one who thought this article was going to be about the "Bay Area Building"?
Either the title needs to be worded differently, or I'm an idiot.
Possibly both.