Thursday, February 27, 2014

Golden Gate Bridge Hits Record 46 Suicides in 2013

San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge has seen a record-breaking level of ‘jumpers’ in 2013, with 46 people ending their life, according to a watchdog group. This is 1.5 times higher than a year before.
The Bridge Rail Foundation urged the authorities to install a safety net to prevent further escalation of the suicide rate at the 1,280-meter bridge, which towers more than 65 meters over the entrance to San Francisco Bay.  
“I know it won’t be built soon, and that’s the most frustrating thing about this,” Dayna Whitmer, board member with the organization, told Reuters.
“We hate to see any more 17-year-olds jump or 86-year-olds jump, it’s just not right,” she added.
The authorities have been planning to set up a special safety net to catch people who jump. However, $66 million are needed to build the construction. Three years ago, a company was given $5 million to design the safety net.
The previous record of suicides is believed to have been 40 or 41 fatalities in one year, Whitmer said.
Currie also said that police officers or others stopped another 118 people from jumping to their deaths. To stop the people from ending their lives, there are bicycle patrols, plus two to four officers on the bridge’s sidewalks, according to California Highway Patrol spokeswoman Andrew Barclay, as cited by Reuters.
In 2012, the number of suicides stood at 33.

24 comments:

  1. And yet we hear no one advocating oppressive new restrictions on bridges, to combat this epidemic of "gravitational violence" (because if a suicide committed with a gun is "gun violence," a suicide by jumping must also be "violence").

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't you read the post, Kurt? People are calling for just that. Safety nets, which according to you freedom-fighters would be a definite restriction on the rights of depressed and mentally ill people from jumping.

      Delete
    2. Read it. Guess I don't see a net as an "oppressive new restriction." Certainly a hell of a lot less oppressive than a prohibition on the anonymous acquisition of life and liberty preserving firepower (as just one example).

      Delete
    3. Mikeb, I'm not aware of anyone here or elsewhere advocating that a person has the right to use someone else's gun to commit suicide.

      Delete
    4. Well, the $66 million cost is a restriction on taxpayer's ability to keep their money.

      Delete
    5. So, so I understand you guys right? Kurt and Greg are in favor of the safety net but TS is not?

      Delete
    6. I never said that I "was in favor" of the net idea--I actually think it's a pretty dumb expense. I just don't view it as an attack on liberty, although TS's point is of course not without merit.

      Delete
    7. Where did I say I was in favor of nets? As I said below, the money could be better spent. But I have no serious objection to them, other than the fact that they might make it harder to fly a Klingon bird of prey under the bridge.

      Delete
    8. Well, you know how Mikeb likes mischaracterizing our positions, Greg. His need to do so exposes a noticeable lack of confidence in his own positions, I would think.

      Delete
    9. Now that's very original, Kurt. Where have I heard that one before?

      Delete
  2. Sounds like they need to add these safety nets to any accessible bridge, building, cliff, or other structure high enough to cause an injury if you were to fall or jump.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In a way they are. That’s what this net proposal is. Some people have also wanted to close down the pedestrian walkway (though widely dismissed). But even in ultra-liberal San Francisco, this net idea is highly controversial. Some are smart enough to realize that $66 million to get someone to jump off the Bay Bridge instead, may not be the wisest use of resources.

    Mike, I brought this net under the bridge idea up a few years ago, but I don’t think you ever stated your thoughts on it. Good idea?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder how many mental health clinics could be funded with that money. Rather than trying to control people, how about just offering them help?

      Delete
    2. Greg,

      You would have a point if money were a finite resource, but we're talking about the government--why not do both!


      Delete
    3. It's not like California is short on cash

      Delete
    4. I prefer that tax money is spent effectively, not wasted.

      Delete
  4. Does living in the Bay Area increase one’s chance of committing suicide because of the presence of that bridge? What about those who live in Marin and commute to San Francisco? They go over it 10 times a week. Talk about easy access to deadly bridges.

    That’s what you say about guns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is what I see happening. One - a contractor will install this net for the government. Two - the government will fail to maintain said net. Three - someone will jump and fall through a whole in the net due to lack of maintenance. Four - the family of the deceased will sue the contractor that installed the net, the company that made the net, and the manufacturer of the material that the net was made from.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What they should do is hire a bunch of grandmothers to walk around with a thermos of tea and some cookies. Oftentimes, a suicide can be averted by a kind word at the right time. This would employ a lot of old women, and probably keep the cops busy stopping illegals gun sales by NRA wacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then we can crossbreed narwhals and mares and feed the foals nothing but Skittles--rainbow farting unicorns for everyone!

      Delete
    2. Posting stupid comments while intoxicated is the road to perdition, my friend.

      Delete
    3. I'd offer you a mirror, but I think your blind optimism would prevent any edification.

      Delete