The proposed Golden Gate Bridge suicide barrier
Bookworm on Jul 22 2008 at 3:56 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
The Golden Gate Bridge is, in my humble opinion, one of the most beautiful sites in the world. Not only is the Bridge lovely in and of itself, driving or walking across it is pure sensory pleasure. Look east, and you see San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay; look west, and you see the Marin Headlands and the vast Pacific Ocean. It’s no wonder that, in addition to the 120,000 vehicles that cross it per day for business and pleasure, thousands of people also walk or bike across the bridge, the better to admire the glorious views. At present, whether one is walking or driving, the views are limited only by the original four foot high barrier — something that does not affect most viewers, whether on foot, on a bike, or in the car.
Sadly, the Golden Gate Bridge has also become something of a suicide mecca. Although the transit district refuses to provide the numbers of known suicides (to discourage people from trying to be a specific number in the total tally), and because there are presumably a number of unknown suicides (who vanished in the night), we have only guesstimates as to the number who have died. Current guesstimates are that, since its opening in 1937, somewhere in excess of 1,200 have jumped off the Bridge. Almost all have died. (Only 26 are known to have survived.)
After waffling for years, the Bridge District is finally putting before the public for the latter’s input the five plans it came up with to deter suicides. The proposed barricades will cost approximately $40-50 million dollar. They are are being pushed primarily by people whose loved ones have been amongst those who committed suicide. You can see the proposed plans here.
One of the things you’ll notice is that, with a single exception — a net below the railings — the proposed plans all obscure the view if one is on the Bridge, especially if one is driving. Additionally, all of the plans will change the look of the Bridge when seen from afar. So, for $50 million dollars (give or take), people both on and off the Bridge will see their views impaired.
(Before I go on with this post, I should note that, while I’ve known people who have committed suicide, I’ve never (a) lost anyone close to me that way and (b) never known anyone who committed suicide off the Golden Gate Bridge.)
My question for you is whether you think it’s appropriate for the public to bear two enormous costs (the financial cost and the destruction of part of the Bridge’s aesthetic values) to prevent further suicides. As for me, while I understand that the Bridge has always been a suicide magnet, and that many suicides are impulsive acts that might not occur if the actor didn’t just happen to be on a suicide magnate, I don’t think that’s enough to make these costly changes. When one considers the hundreds of thousands of people who, on a daily basis, enjoy the beauty the Bridge provides, I don’t believe it’s reasonable to destroy the view for the general public in order to try to save the 15-20 lives lost on an annual basis on the Bridge.
When one considers the minute fraction of Bridge users that the suicides represent, and the fact that at least some of those 15-20 annual suicides are not impulse suicides, but will live to try another day and another way, it simply seems unfair to change forever — at great expense — the uniquely beautiful character of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.
Related posts:
- Freeing hostages; limiting suicide bombers
- Forgiveness and cultural suicide
- The media again goes after the military
Email This Post To A Friend
27 Responses to “The proposed Golden Gate Bridge suicide barrier”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Suicides ARE a terrible thing.
But if we do that, then where do we stop? The Grand Canyon has an average of 2-3 suicides per year. I’m sure few people are willing to say that 15 suicides in a year are not acceptable but 2 or 3 are.
So should we put a net over the Canyon?
Deana
Do I think it’s appropriate? No.
My mother committed suicide last year by taking an overdose of prescription medicine. I don’t blame the medicine, I don’t think there should be an expensive mechanism blocking access to medicine by suicidal people (and everyone else) because of my experience, and I wouldn’t expect the public to take me seriously if I did. I don’t see why the GG Bridge should be treated differently, the mechanism for self-destruction is not the cause, the person is, and these families need to stop billing society for their loved-one’s acts.
I seem to recall the California Coastal Commission blocked all sorts of construction on private property because they determined it would be detrimental to the aesthetics of the view of a few people, even blocking construction only visible to the sea because people in boats would be deprived. Where is our out-of-control ultra-sensitive bureaucracy when we need them? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
I’m so sorry about your mother, socratease. I can only imagine how devastating that must have been. It’s exceptionally impressive, therefore, that you’re able to be clearheaded about the issue.
Socratease –
I’m sorry to hear about your family’s experience with suicide. The only thing that is worse than the pain and darkness that the family feels after the suicide is the pain and darkness that the family member feels before they commit suicide. It’s heartbreaking.
I hope your family is doing ok.
Greetings:
Just another day in the land of the tyranny of the minorities. One more group claiming victimization and demanding that the rest of the world respond to its sensitivities. And the politicians of the “People’s Republic of the San Francisco Bay” are more than willing to respond. What’s another $40-50 million to the Bridge Authority. If you’re always going broke, why worry, just raise the toll some more.
Maybe the Transamerica Pyramid can install a platform the suiciders can go off and charge a toll. But, look out below.
P.S. I think you meant suicide magnet, not “suicide magnate”
Thanks, 11B40. Wouldn’t it be nice if I could be paid by the typo? I’d be rich beyond my wildest dreams.
No. No. No. No. No.
Many of my fellow shrink types have gotten involved in this misbegotten effort. It appalls me.
Suicide is a part of life, but this gives it pride of place on the bridge.
To build this barrier turns the bridge into a suicide symbol, reduces this magnificent structure to yet another site for us to feel bad and helpless and believe that the world must be rendered utterly safe from all accident and loss and pain…and from human freedom.
Okay, let’s say for argument’s sake that I agree a lovely (man-made) bridge and a lovely (natural) view should be preserved, even though a number of people have died jumping from the bridge, thereby eliminating considerable taxes to the citizens.
Now, let’s say (for argument’s sake) that we are going to destroy a lovely (natural) view for the sake of drilling oil. Only this will give us more gasoline. Should be preserve North Carolina’s coast? Or just California’s bridges?
Is this about beauty or taxes? Hmmm.
thereby eliminating considerable taxes to the citizens.
That’s an interesting view about the loss of life.
Helen –
If I understand you correctly, you think there is an inconsistency.
But there isn’t.
The issue in California is that a significant amount of money would be saved if the decision were made not to put the net on the bridge. That decision would preserve beauty, save money, but might prevent some lives from being saved in that particular spot. (Just because people would no longer be able to commit suicide by jumping of the bridge does not mean they wouldn’t go elsewhere.)
With regard to oil, a significant amount of money would be saved if the decision were made to drill here in the U.S. That decision would save money, many would argue it would save lives, and beauty would still be preserved.
Think of it this way: There is only one bridge and the proposal to put the net up (while I completely understand it and even sympathize with it) would destroy the beauty of the ENTIRE bridge.
Drilling for oil would affect a very, very tiny spot in the ocean that might not even be visible from the coast. There would still be miles and miles and miles of coast from which you would be unable to see any oil rigs.
Deana
USMaleSF –
“To build this barrier turns the bridge into a suicide symbol, reduces this magnificent structure to yet another site for us to feel bad and helpless and believe that the world must be rendered utterly safe from all accident and loss and pain…and from human freedom.”
You are so right. Putting up a net on that bridge would serve to dampen the beauty and sense of freedom that it was designed to inspire in us.
Excellent point.
Deana
Hi Helen,
By not putting up the suicide barrier, we can preserve beauty and save tax dollars. By drilling for oil off-shore we can preserve beauty (or at least have a minimal negative impact on it), create tax dollars and help our economy and our citizens who are paying the price for foreign oil. There is no contradiction and should be no issue here.
Wow. Leave it to Helen to twist a completely unrelated issue into a democratic talking point and liberal pet peeve.
Spiff
Hi Helen:
Don’t you have any compassion for all those minimum-wage workers who need to drive to work everyday? Isn’t that more important than possibly marring the ocean views of wealthy beach-front communities?
And. Don’t forget the and, DQ, the Golden Gate Bridge is on the west coast (your coast) and the Outer Banks on the Easy Coast (the one closer to my home)! LOL
Spiff, That’s Helen for ya.
Danny, the Outer Banks are pristine. No people live there permanently. Drill off the west coast, if you want oil. We just stay home more. LOL
Helen,
Ha ha. Your like my grandmother who always has contrary opinions in every conversation. What ever position I have, she is the opposite.
Spiff
Helen, do you use electricity? It probably comes from either coal or natural gas, which most likely does not originate in your state. If you are in favor of local resource extraction only, you should really turn all the switches off.
Also, do you use any products made of metal? Because I’m not aware of any iron mines in North Carolina…there may be some mini-mills for conversion of scrap metal into steel, but these are again dependent on electricity, which comes from those out-of-state resources.
There is no contradiction and should be no issue here.
The issue is that Helen values the loss of tax dollars when a citizen kills himself more than the loss of life to the Republic. Please understand this when you guys are responding to her.
Y., you have completely misunderstood: Spending the tax dollars would save lives not lose them.
My point is, beauty in California is NOT more important than beauty in North Carolina or Alaska or any other place people might be to enjoy it.
Hi Helen,
For once we agree completely. We should drill in California, North Carilona and Alaska and wherever we can find oil worth drilling for. No one area should be saved at the expense of the others.
Helen, you don’t know that lives would be saved, suicide rates have proven to be independent of available methods. For instance, gun control laws reduce gun suicides, but not overall suicide rates.
The Golden Gate Bridge really has to be seen to be appreciated. It is a working piece of art deco set in a place of natural beauty, and to walk across it is to have your wonder of life renewed. I’m sorry that the individuals who chose to jump off of it couldn’t instead have used that beauty to give them a reason for living, but I see no value in punishing everyone else by taking away one of our reasons for living just because they didn’t. That makes bad sense psychologically and economically.
Spending the tax dollars would save lives not lose them.
Just because you believe the government can kill people on a whim, does not make it true that the government can also save people on whim.
My point is, beauty in California is NOT more important than beauty in North Carolina or Alaska or any other place people might be to enjoy it.
And my point is that people’s lives are worth more than cheap political points concerning who gets to pay into your treasury that you get to distribute where ever you see fit.
Okay, let’s say for argument’s sake that I agree a lovely (man-made) bridge and a lovely (natural) view should be preserved, even though a number of people have died jumping from the bridge, thereby eliminating considerable taxes to the citizens.
You do not understand, because you refuse to comprehend, the fact that your political opponents do not deem the “taxes” collected from citizens as being the same thing as exploiting and improving America’s resource extraction/refining capabilities.
When you make equal comparisons of the two, you only show your own personal biases. You’re not arguing against somebody else’s.
What do you think you’ll convince people of. That because there’ll be an economic improvement from drilling in American territory, that this will offset America’s scenic beauty, which is the same standard that should be applied to the Golden Gate Bridge?
No, the truth is, you’ll argue for an incompetent and worthless “modification” to the bridge that will do nothing positive for anyone except the builders and the government that wishes to expand their budget. You may see this as a worthy sacrifice of the “view”.
But when it comes to oil, you don’t apply those standards.
We apply the standards to both, you don’t. Simple as that.
Drill everywhere.
And – more people live in Kill Devil Hills, Nag’s Head, and Kitty Hawk than live in my (admittedly western) town.
And the folks in Southern Shores, Corolla, Buxton, Whalebone, Ocracoke, Frisco, Salvo, Rodanthe, Atlantic Beach and Duck – among others – would probably be quite surprised to find they don’t live there.
But ’tis true, no one lives in the Cape Lookout National Seashore or on Shackleford Banks. Plenty of people live, work, go to school, and shop on Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
No. No barriers should be installed.
Interesting, Benning. I get in big trouble by called the public coffers (generated through taxes) “our” money. And you suggest “no barriers” as in, my backyard or yours? No barriers, huh? I suggest the White House lawn.
[...] stumbled upon a blog, Bookworm Room, yesterday that brought the issue to my attention. This blogger likely represents the sentiment of the "overwhelming 75 [...]