Golden Gate Bridge to get suicide net to catch would-be jumpers

[Motown_Johnny]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-goldengate11-2008oct11,0,6335235.story


snip

Stainless-steel netting costing up to $50 million will be placed beneath the Golden Gate Bridge to catch would-be suicide jumpers, San Francisco officials decided Friday.











What exactly will stop people from crawling out to the edge of the net and jumping?

IMO spend the money on people to patrol the bridge to try and stop people. $50 million will buy a lot of security guards

[Fuzz]

1. I could see idiots jumping into the net for fun actually.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. that too, I bet it will become a collage hazing ritual

I am just curious if it is the best way to save lives or not. I think not.

[DS1]

2. I wonder how many thrill seekers will test it for fun

[Nickster]

4. about damn time they do something about this. It made me sick to see the documentary

that was done about people jumping and they said that no anti-suicide prevention was being pursued because it would take away from the aesthetics of the bridge. It's not the greatest solution, but at least it's a start.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. I agree something should be done, I just don't see this being effective

fencing that keep people from being able to jump might be more effective.

I just don't understand why anyone thinks that people who want to jump won't just crawl out to the edge of the net to jump

[Nickster]

Well, the only thing I can think of is that it would buy you enough time to get over the edge and

into the net to stop that from happening. The current situation is the person flips over the edge and that's pretty much it, game over. There are people stationed along the bridge to help, but they can't be expected to react quick enough to help if someone walking by just hops over the edge.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. then what about fencing that would need to be climbed to get over the edge?

What can the people do once the jumper is in the net? They will still be on the bridge. Are they supposed to jump into the net and grab the person trying to jump?

I guess I just don't get it.

[Nickster]

61. They mentioned fencing but were upset that it would take away from the touristy appeal of the bridge

even though that would be the best solution. I'm only theorizing, but if I was a rescuer, I wouldn't have an issue with jumping into the net after a jumper to hold them down until help arrived or I could talk them into going back onto the bridge. Another thought is that maybe the jumper would have that extra minute to think about it and "take back" their initial decision.

[...of J.Temperance]

67. I watched "The Bridge" as well, the Golden Gate is a BEAUTIFUL monument to DEATH

"The Bridge" is so harrowing, and I agree, as I pointed out downthread, the $50 million would be better suited helping to fund suicide prevention programs.

If people who want to commit suicide can't do it by jumping off the Golden Gate anymore, then they'll just find an alternative way to commit suicide....there are other bridges, there are tall buildings, there are guns etc.

[itsrobert]

5. If people are that hell bent on killing themselves they will go else where

Spending $50 Million on this is bullcrap.

[Webster Green]

23. I agree!

It's an absurd idea. If someone really wants to commit suicide, they will find a way.

It will ruin the aesthetics of our bridge, and it's a waste of money. :silly:

[...of J.Temperance]

69. "It will ruin the aesthetics of our bridge"....probably already ruined

As I said, the Golden Gate is a BEAUTIFUL monument to DEATH....the real suicide number is probably 2,000, that takes into account the bodies they've never found that got washed out to the ocean.

The fact that the Golden Gate Bridge is the number one place on the planet that has seen the MOST suicides, can never be changed....the ghosts of the tormented will remain forever at the Golden Gate.

In essense the aesthetics of the Golden Gate were ruined once the jumpers past the 1,000 mark....it will eternally be known as the Suicide Bridge, an amazingly beautiful Art Deco masterpiece that has been chosen by THOUSANDS of tormented souls as the location for them to end their pain.

The Golden Gate bridge....the Bridge To The Other Side.

[jobycom]

6. $50 million seems like lot of cash to relocate suicides.

People will just jump off skyscrapers instead, and leave stains.

[crispini]

8. It's actually a lot harder to get on top of a skyscraper.

Limited access, and whatnot.

[curse of greyface]

9. Are you sure? Most building have surprising easy roof access.

And lets face it it doesn't have to be the Sears Tower any run of the mill 30 story buiding will do.

[DS1]

12. 11 stories, according to the experts

[jobycom]

14. I remember a guy jumping off the roof of my 9th floor dorm at Mississippi State.

Did quite an effective job.

[crispini]

17. Didn't think about that, I was just thinking about the really tall ones.

I wonder if the Golden Gate is in fact a sort of "suicide magnet" and if these people are in fact attracted a bit by the mystique of the bridge. Would an ordinary building "do" just as well?

[Gormy Cuss]

26. 1300 confirmed suicides in its 71 year history (18/yr on average.)

That's confirmed and there probably have been more that went unobserved. It is a suicide magnet locally and there has been growing pressure to make it less attractive for this purpose. It has the easy combination of pedestrian access and relatively low rails,plus to some the allure of the grand gesture of jumping off a landmark.

Addressing the issue without doing the simplest and ugliest solution, namely erecting another 10 ft of fencing on top of the rails, has been under debate here for years. The netting was the compromise.

[fed_up_mother]

49. How about no pedestrian access?

[Gormy Cuss]

56. That would be difficult because it's a tremendously popular tourist attraction.

Having a tourist bus take people over the bridge wouldn't be practical substitute because it's a high speed road with lots of traffic.

Access to the sidewalks is also necessary for commuting bicyclists(the traffic lanes are just too crowded and narrow for officials to encourage usage by bikes.)

Believe me, they discussed restricting pedestrian access and the clamor against that was immediate and loud.

[...of J.Temperance]

65. I believe they shut off pedestrian access at night at the Golden Gate now

I'm sure they close the walkway at night, people can still ride a bicycle across the bridge, but I'm sure the walkway by the cords (barriers) is closed at night.

[Gormy Cuss]

74. Yes, it 's closed with security gates at night.

Bicyclists can still access the sidewalks by a slightly cumbersome method of buzzing the gate at both ends.

[jobycom]

11. Didn't literally mean it had to be skyscrapers.

Guns, pills, trains, whatever. They'd save more lives investing the $50 million in mental health programs.

[crispini]

16. It'd be interesting to run some numbers on that, and see if it's true.

How many people DO jump every year? Would this, in fact, cause people to go with other methods of suicide? There must be people out there who study this.

[jobycom]

21. Would be interesting. How would you determine whether the body in the bay

would have gone somewhere else if not for the bridge, though? I imagine now and then someone gets up on a high bridge, or finds a gun in a drawer, and winds up killing themselves just because depression and opportunity met at the right time. Actually, a friend of mine would probably not have killed herself if her sorry husband hadn't collected guns (he was sorry for cheating on her, not for the guns). But I can't say that for sure. And I'm not sure how you could test that, although I suppose mental health professionals who deal with it all the time would have good insight into the matter.

It's just that most of the suicides I've seen--with three exceptions--made the decision first, then found the method. Of the three exceptions, all used guns in their homes are car. One was drunk, one had just been told by her husband that as soon as she delivered their baby, he was divorcing her for the the woman he was having an affair with (yeah, really), and one I have no idea on--he just shot himself in the gut with a shotgun in a dorm room. All the rest had talked about it for months, and plotted, and finally did it. Netting wouldn't have done anything for them.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. they claim that the landmark is a "suicide magnet". I know nothing about this but

it is possible that there is a romantic appeal, to some disturbed people, about jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge


If you can cut the suicides by just 50% then the net, or it's equivalent, is defiantly worth it.

[jobycom]

37. Maybe. I have trouble believing that there are a high number of people

who would be pulled to jump off the bridge who wouldn't be pulled to some other location instead. I mean, suicide is a mindset, and I don't believe their are many people who are pulled into that mindset because of one object who wouldn't wind up there otherwise. There may be a handful, but I'd have to see some strong data to be convinced it's a high number. I've been around mental illness and delusional people my entire life, and that's my impression.

But it is just an impression, not any proven fact. And $50 million isn't that much in the overall scheme of things in a large city. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I just question whether it is just (God I hate to do this) putting lipstick on a pig.

[crispini]

29. Perhaps comparing suicide rates in different cities...

adjusting for other factors, not sure what those are?

I'm just wondering if the bridge is sort of a "suicide magnet" due to it's role in popular culture. In other words, the people that you're talking about are people who were quite serious about committing suicide. Whereas perhaps the bridge jumpers are interested in the "idea" of suicide and it joins together with the idea of jumping off the bridge.

Interesting story here, just found it, haven't read it yet:

One-thousand, two-hundred eighteen dead. The lives of families devastated. Sixty-eight years of debate about a suicide barrier. Today, The Chronicle begins a seven-part series looking at the darker side of the Golden Gate Bridge. The conclusion is inescapable: A suicide barrier would prevent deaths. Golden Gate Bridge district directors voted in March to authorize a $2 million feasibility study, which has not yet been fully funded. The stories this week provide the context, background, meaning and a human dimension for the decisions that will follow.

more...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/30/MNG2NFF7KI1.DTL

Edited to add another snip from the article:

"When suicide becomes difficult," Meyer says, "people do not switch to another method. They tend to get help. This is what happened in England when the formula for gas ovens was changed" -- carbon-monoxide levels were reduced -- "and it became harder for people to purchase certain over-the-counter drugs. The suicide rate went down. England has a suicide rate half the size of ours because they're so aggressive about it."

[LanternWaste]

68. And have the opportunity...

"People will just jump off skyscrapers instead..."

And have the opportunity to re-evaluate their decisions on the way to the "skyscapers".

[tabasco]

10. They better build walls next to all RR tracks too.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Maybe we can ban all bridges over 20 feet to keep people from killing themselves.

[curse of greyface]

13. There are better things to spend 50 million on ..... much better things,

People that want to kill themselves will find a way.

This seems like a giant ball of unintended consequences (as some mentioned above college hazing being one that jumps to mind)

[Motown_Johnny]

15. I'm not against spending the money to save lives, I am questioning the effectiveness

If they feel this is a reasonable amount to spend I won't argue that. I just want to save as many lives as possible with that money.

[AlCzervik]

19. i agree, maybe it will be a slight deterrent but i don't think it will be effective in the long run

[Happyhippychick]

20. I can answer your question. When suicide survivors have been interviewed, they have overwhelmingly

stated that they were very sorry that they had jumped at the moment that they jumped - they experienced tremendous remorse at the decision. Those who would jump and be saved by the net would not at all be likely to continue to try.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. even if they know that jumping into the net isn't dangerous? It seems that you are just making

it a 2 step process.


Jumping into the net won't be a suicide attempt, it will be what you need to do before you can crawl out to the edge of the net to then attempt suicide.



Honestly, I hope you are right. I would love to hear that this will be effective, I just don't see it.

[Happyhippychick]

25. I see what you are saying and I can't say for sure. People in that type of dispair are not

necessarily being logical, they are running on pure emotion.

I can't believe that they would be spending that kind of money without having done research into it's effectiveness. Most bridge jumping suicides are very impulsive and I do believe it will help with those individuals. The planners, who are determined to end it, will go elsewhere. This is a move to help those who are being impulsive.

[Motown_Johnny]

32. thank you

that is the kind of answer I was looking for.


I still think some fencing that needs to be climbed, along with more foot patrols, would be a better approach but I am no expert

[Happyhippychick]

33. You are welcome.

[petronius]

28. But in this case, would the jump down to the net actually trigger that?

I suspect any jumper would be aware of the net, and would see it as an obstacle to be cleared in advance - the remorse would kick in on the jump after the net.

It seems that the benefit of the net is that it may deter jumpers by making the jump too difficult, or slow the process enough for an intervention, but in my opinion a fence would be more effective (much as I love just leaning on that simple rail and gazing at the Bay, I imagine a fence could be constructed in a reasonably unobtrusive way)...

[Happyhippychick]

34. Look at my reply that is up 3 - I addressed this.

[petronius]

47. I guess I just don't particularly agree with you

IMO, most impulse-jumpers will be just as inclined to do a 2-step jump as a 1-step. The net may deter some, and will block those who are physically unable to clamber over it, but I suspect a fence would be more effective.

On the other hand, a net with an inwardly-sloping unclimbable fence on it's outer edge would work pretty well - people could jump into the net and then not climb out of it. (It would also deter the fun-jumpers, if the police had to come extract them from the net.) If that's what's being planned, I withdraw my objection...

[Happyhippychick]

54. I'm not sure what kind of net is being planned but I hope it's the one you describe.

Fences are effective as well.

It's fine to disagree, I am not offended. I studied suicide for my master's and this is just the conclusion I reached, that bridge jumpings are generally performed by those in despair and deterrents can be very effective. The net idea is something I have not researched though and I find it intriguing.

[petronius]

58. Here's an interesting short article on nets

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/10/13/how-does-a-bridge-suicide-net-work/

It sounds as though they have considered the climb-out question, and are designing to prevent it.

A couple of snips:

Snip...

When people jump from the bridge into the net, it will hold them there, suspended some 740 feet over the entrance to the San Francisco Bay.

Denis Mulligan, the chief engineer of the bridge, recently explained to the San Francisco Chronicle how the net works — it envelops the suicide jumper, making it difficult, but not impossible, to get out:

“It wouldn’t be like a trampoline, that once you jump onto, it would be easy to jump off,” Mulligan said. But, he added, “If you’re very agile, very strong and focused, you may be able to climb out.”

The net will be angled and constructed in such a way as to make climbing out of it difficult. The 20 foot drop a person takes into the net will also likely be painful.

Snip...

A similar net was installed in Bern, Switzerland. According to the paper, “Researchers found that just the presence of the net stopped people from even trying to jump off the Munster Terrace, a medieval cathedral located in the old section of Bern, from which two or three people had been leaping to their deaths every year. They also found that the net did not shift suicides to other locations.”

Snip...

After installation of suicide barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol, England, researchers there found a significant decline in the number of successful suicides from the bridge. Importantly — and contrary to conventional wisdom — the researchers did not find an increase in jumps from other buildings or bridges in the area. In other words, people didn’t just go find another bridge to jump from.

A net is likely a less effective suicide barrier than a properly designed fence would be. It is hypothesized, however, that the net will work to take away the impulsiveness of the suicidal act. If you know ahead of time that the net is there, and will make it extremely painful and difficult (and in some cases, impossible) to actually complete the act, it’s likely most people will simply not bother trying.

[Motown_Johnny]

60. and thank you

again, this is the kind of thing I was hoping for when starting the thread

[LeftyMom]

27. There are high cliffs at one side of the bridge and skyscrapers at the other.

Are we going to put nets on those too?

[AlCzervik]

35. and what about the Bay Bridge and the Oakland bridge?

[LeftyMom]

36. Well you can't walk accross the bay bridge.

And if you try to stop your car to go over the side, you're likely to be killed in the resulting traffic accident before you need a net. ;)

[AlCzervik]

38. true but you could still get up there if you really wanted too.

[LeftyMom]

40. True. I think once in a blue moon they do get a jumper.

I suppose the easiest way to do it would be to park at Treasure Island and then hustle out onto the western span on foot.

[...of J.Temperance]

72. Statistics show that people will only usually jump from bridges that you can walk across

That way they have less chance of being stopped from jumping.

It's the same around the world, in Britain there are two notorious suicide bridges, the Humber Bridge (which for sixteen years was the worlds longest suspension bridge) and the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifton_Suspension_Bridge

Both are bridges you can walk across, both have a 98% successful suicide rate, like the Golden Gate, since it opened in 1981, 200 people have jumped off the Humber Bridge and only 5 have survived.

Between 1974-1993, 127 people jumped to their deaths off the Clifton Suspension Bridge.

The Clifton Suspension Bridge has the EXACT same drop to the water as the Golden Gate, 245 feet, the drop to the water from the Humber Bridge is roughly 120 feet.

The Clifton Suspension Bridge has installed higher barriers now, but they have NOT stopped the suicides, they have only REDUCED the number of suicides per year from 8 to 4.

Which is why I think a suicide net at the Golden Gate is actually going to be a waste of money in the long-term.

On Edit: Fixed link

[SmileyRose]

30. Wouldn't 50 million on access to crisis mental healthcare be more effective?

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

53. Seems that way to me.

From a personal situation I know that crisis intervention is a lot harder to find than one might expect, and lack of funding is responsible.

[undeterred]

62. DING! DING! DING!

You're centuries ahead of the people who are thinking about this.

[Canadiana]

31. I think this is a great idea

A lot of people do not understand suicide. This is a wonderful New York Times article that explains the impulsive nature of those who choose certain methods of suicide such as bridge jumping or shooting themselves. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html
It turns out that many of these people are not thinking rationally (obviously)and when their focused attempt is initially thwarted, they decide against committing suicide. This article also happens to provide a tight argument against having handguns in the home.

[depakid]

44. Libertarian tendencies are difficult to counteract

I too think it's a good idea- and one that will save lives.

The article you cited is a really insightful bit of writing. In particular, the study of the Taft and the Ellington bridges in Washington shows unequivacally why many posting on this thread- despite the seeming logic, are wrong.

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.

What makes looking at jumping suicides potentially instructive is that it is a method associated with a very high degree of impulsivity, and its victims often display few of the classic warning signs associated with suicidal behavior. In fact, jumpers have a lower history of prior suicide attempts, diagnosed mental illness (with the exception of schizophrenia) or drug and alcohol abuse than is found among those who die by less lethal methods, like taking pills or poison. Instead, many who choose this method seem to be drawn by a set of environmental cues that, together, offer three crucial ingredients: ease, speed and the certainty of death.

So why the Ellington more than the Taft?

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=3

These sorts of things are why ya gotta love real, hands on science.

[crispini]

It looks like it's been studied pretty extensively

and that it's a good idea to have the barrier:

If we believe that those thwarted by a bridge barrier will simply find another way to end their lives, it follows that suicide cannot be prevented. And if we believe that nothing can be done to stop it, then we need not act.

In the late 1970s, two scientific studies concluded that survivors of suicide attempts from the Golden Gate Bridge do not "just go someplace else."

Dr. David Rosen, then of UCSF's department of psychiatry and Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, spent 2 1/2 years researching "Suicide Survivors," an in-depth study of six people who survived jumping from the bridge. The study was published in 1975.

Almost unanimously, the survivors said that their "will to live had taken over" after they survived the jump. "I was refilled with a new hope and purpose in being alive," said one. "Surviving reconfirmed my belief and purpose in my life," said another. Only one person in the study made a subsequent suicide attempt.

Much more here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/05/MNG9UFIV9O1.DTL

[Motown_Johnny]

42. it seems aesthetics were considered also,

snip from the link in the OP

The netting was the "locally preferred alternative," Currie said. More than 5,000 comments came flooding into the agency as part of its environmental review process.


The others included extending the height of the bridge's railing from four to 12 feet -- an option widely criticized as too obtrusive.

[dana_b]

39. hmmmm...... I know that they were also thinking

of putting up a higher rail or screen that people could see through but couldn't jump over. I wonder what happened to that?

There have been two friends close to people I love that have jumped from there so I'm glad to see something finally happening.

[JonQ]

41. We could make doctor assisted suicide legal

euthanasia, so it would be painless, quick and not a public spectacle. I wouldn't encourage it, but ultimately if an adult chooses to die I'd say that is a choice they have every right to make.

[Motown_Johnny]

43. this isn't about very old or very ill people choosing to die. It is about emotionally disturbed

individuals making an impulsive decision that ends their lives.

The article in the OP has a statistic of over 90% of people who survived their attempted suicide still being alive years later, or dieing from natural causes.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think it is a little off topic for this thread

[JonQ]

51. But can we really start limiting the actions of adults

because they may regret it later? Arguably suicide is an extreme case, and emotions tend to run high on this one (and of course religion has to get involved) but I don't like the notion that we ought to start telling people how to live their lives (or not) because "they'll regret it later".

For instance: sure you may want to get an abortion now, but statistics show that many regret it later. We're going to go ahead and stop you, for your own good of course.

Crazy isn't it?

[Motown_Johnny]

73. it is fairly well established that this society attempts to limit suicides.

It is part of who we are.


so, yes. We can and do try to limit the actions of adults


In this case we assume that anyone (in good physical health) who attempts suicide is mentally ill and therefor needs to be protected.

[JonQ]

75. That's poor reasoning

it's right because it is currently the law. And why should it be a law? Why, because it's right of course.

Lot's of things were legal at one point that put a damper on the whole "freedom" thing. And of course declaring anyone who chooses a particular course of action to be "insane" and thus unable to choose that course is a nice little catch-22.

[lonestarnot]

45. Well what the hell will that accomplish? Suiciding I mean.

[fed_up_mother]

46. Of the folks that jump, how many will find an alternate way to commit suicide?

I think you have to factor that in to realize just how much this is going to cost per life saved. :( (I realize that sounds awful...)

[...of J.Temperance]

48. A relative of mine killed himself by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge

I think the idea of a suicide net is a good idea, however I would question how effective it would be in reducing suicide, sure, it might prevent people from choosing jumping off the Golden Gate as their method of suicide....but it wouldn't prevent them from using an alternative method of suicide.

I really think that money needs to be spent on suicide prevention more than anything else, and that includes examining the social and environmental and mental health issues that very often contribute to suicide and thoughts of suicide.

The jumpers have an horrific death, the luckier ones die upon impact, from all their bones breaking inward and ripping open all of their organs, including their heart.

The one's who aren't so lucky, can take a few minutes to die, in the water, with all their bones broken and then drowning in up to fifty feet of water.

Jumping from a bridge where the drop is 245 feet into water, is the same as being hit head on 100mph by a truck, or jumping off a 20 storey building....it's devastating.

Some of the jumpers are never found, their bodies wash out to the ocean for the sharks and the crabs.


On Edit: Added comment

[wtmusic]

55. A loved family friend killed herself by jumping from an 8-story apartment

stairway. Accessible to anyone, and effective.

This money seems misdirected.

[...of J.Temperance]

66. I agree the money is misdirected, money should go into funding suicide prevention initiatives

$50 million on a suicide net....won't stop people who are determined to kill themselves from killing themselves.

[Mari333]

50. think this might be about lawsuits and insurance companies?

it often boils down to which is more cost effective.

[Motown_Johnny]

52. possibly... I honestly had not considered that

I was just wondering why the net was the choice when the article linked in the OP says that other things were looked at but that this one was settled on. It seems to be a token gesture. I hope I am wrong.

[Mari333]

59. well, I live in a beach town in Michigan

and a lot of people walk out on the pier here in inclement weather and drown....the city had to go thru a lot of lawyers and lawsuits to find out how to handle the safety issues of the pier. They finally settled on posting warning signs.
I was just thinking, I wondered if SF has lawsuits pending of families whose loved ones decided to jump, and whether it is more cost effective for the city to put up a net..
i.e. this was a suggestion of lawyers and insurance companies, perhaps, to keep the city from future litigation. maybe.

[snooper2]

76. now you'll get lawsuits of people getting fucked up

by landing on a steel net...

Well, I didn't die but this net messed me up so now I'll sue, it should have been a softer landing...

[W_HAMILTON]

57. First thing I thought when I saw a news bit on this...

...wouldn't they just jump over the bridge, fall into the net, then climb over the net and fall to their death?

Or is there some way to keep them from doing that?

[plaintiff]

63. Great. For only a few billion more we can get nets all along the Grand Canyon too.

:eyes: :silly:

[Recursion]

64. It's actually pretty well established in suicidology...

...that any device that is there to prevent suicide, even if it's just on one side of the bridge, drastically reduces attempts. It's not so much about actually catching people, it's about presenting the idea that "this bridge isn't a place to kill yourself" that seems to work.

[WillyT]

70. I'm Sorry...

But NO safety-nets for Republicans.

:evilgrin:

:hide:

[Warpy]

71. Studies have shown that any barrier will discorage suicides

One bridge had a railing raised only a foot and a study found that the number of suicides from that particular bridge dropped.

The best thing about a physical barrier is that it doesn't put a human guard at risk.