> But honestly, there are LOTS of bridges around here. It ain't going to stop someone who wants to do it.
It does, actually. Plenty of examples to prove it. The best is the Duke Ellington and Taft bridges in Washington DC - the bridges are right next to each other, but everyone jumped off the Ellington bridge because the view was better. So they put up a suicide barrier on the Ellington bridge. You wouldn't think this would work - you'd think people would go right over to the Taft bridge a hundred meters away and jump off it instead, but they don't. The overall suicide rate in DC went down, by almost exactly the number of people who used to jump off the Duke Ellington bridge every year. The number of people jumping off the Taft Bridge - or any other bridge - stayed the same.
Or the Empire State building. They put a suicide barrier at the top of the building, and people stopped jumping off it. There was a decrease in the number of people dying by jumping off a building in NYC. Nobody went and found some other building to jump off.
People aren't choosing the Golden Gate Bridge because it's convenient. If they did that, they wouldn't walk out to the middle - it's a ways! - and they wouldn't 90% jump off facing towards land, and nobody would travel from out of the country to off himself. I'm sure they could find a bridge in their own country. They're choosing it because it's poetic and it's got this reputation, and they won't just drive to some other bridge.
Suicide-by-bridge is so incredibly impulsive. Psychologists interviewing survivors have found that it's kind of a different thought process from, say, purchasing a gun to shoot yourself with. If something's in the way, they'll go home. And maybe they'll try again another day, but most of them don't.
Putting up a barrier will save lives. Maybe you don't think people's lives are worth the money, or you think we shouldn't try to help depressed people, or whatever, but a barrier will save lives. It has in NYC and DC and Toronto, and it would in SF too.
And someday, they'll even put a barrier on the Aurora bridge in Seattle, which is second only to the Golden Gate bridge for number of suicides. I hope.
If I wanted to commit suicide by bridge, I would definitely walk out to the middle. Further ways to drop and less likely for intervention from someone either side telling me to step down.
30 deaths a year doesn't seem like a reputation to jump off of it. To me, it seems like the highest pedestrian accessible bridge in the area. Despite the number of successful freeway overpass jumpers in the area, it would still seem too uncertain of death to me to not try for something more definite were I to be in that mindset.
I think adding more people on a suicide hotline would help more people than a bridge net. The *one* time I called one, the line was fast busy.
It does, actually. Plenty of examples to prove it. The best is the Duke Ellington and Taft bridges in Washington DC - the bridges are right next to each other, but everyone jumped off the Ellington bridge because the view was better. So they put up a suicide barrier on the Ellington bridge. You wouldn't think this would work - you'd think people would go right over to the Taft bridge a hundred meters away and jump off it instead, but they don't. The overall suicide rate in DC went down, by almost exactly the number of people who used to jump off the Duke Ellington bridge every year. The number of people jumping off the Taft Bridge - or any other bridge - stayed the same.
Or the Empire State building. They put a suicide barrier at the top of the building, and people stopped jumping off it. There was a decrease in the number of people dying by jumping off a building in NYC. Nobody went and found some other building to jump off.
People aren't choosing the Golden Gate Bridge because it's convenient. If they did that, they wouldn't walk out to the middle - it's a ways! - and they wouldn't 90% jump off facing towards land, and nobody would travel from out of the country to off himself. I'm sure they could find a bridge in their own country. They're choosing it because it's poetic and it's got this reputation, and they won't just drive to some other bridge.
Suicide-by-bridge is so incredibly impulsive. Psychologists interviewing survivors have found that it's kind of a different thought process from, say, purchasing a gun to shoot yourself with. If something's in the way, they'll go home. And maybe they'll try again another day, but most of them don't.
Putting up a barrier will save lives. Maybe you don't think people's lives are worth the money, or you think we shouldn't try to help depressed people, or whatever, but a barrier will save lives. It has in NYC and DC and Toronto, and it would in SF too.
Reply
Reply
30 deaths a year doesn't seem like a reputation to jump off of it. To me, it seems like the highest pedestrian accessible bridge in the area. Despite the number of successful freeway overpass jumpers in the area, it would still seem too uncertain of death to me to not try for something more definite were I to be in that mindset.
I think adding more people on a suicide hotline would help more people than a bridge net. The *one* time I called one, the line was fast busy.
Reply
Leave a comment