Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:



No we see that you and sassy never cared about suicides by the fact you have hardly talked about it from the start, sorry but playing the guilt trip card is also very pathetic Irn as I can do it too

Try again

I think that calling someone a liar when you have just been found lying is a tad unfair.
Anyhoo....

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Oh behave, he thread was started to draw him in the first place, it so obvious to man, how the thread panned out, seriously people are not fooled Irn as seen, the fact you argue so strongly proves this, as I know you all to well myself.

I would like to talk about what this thread should be about suicides, but as seen you are desperate to shame someone, that really proves my point on why the thread was started and I only set out to prove what you are proving now, that it was a set up!

It's you that's doing the arguing. I'm quite happy to discuss the merits of the safety net and the benefits it will bring. Are you or do you just want to keep on arguing and making unfounded accusations?

Odd it takes two or more to argue, so that is gobbledygook Irn, I just know you too well.
Happy to discuss, as yet have not seen you ask me anything on the matter.

lovedust wrote:
Anyway, point 8 of Agenda Item 10A referred to an estimated $20m shortfall in the projections. Does anyone know where else the project managers might look for these funds?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Odd it takes two or more to argue, so that is gobbledygook Irn, I just know you too well.
Happy to discuss, as yet have not seen you ask me anything on the matter.

It does and you were quick enough to jump in and argue without offering anything on the suicide aspect or the benefits this project may deliver. Says it all really but if you really do want to discuss the subject in the OP then go right ahead - no-one is stopping you.

Sassy wrote:Did he really say that?   Never mind the people who have to try and rescue them, never mind the people who are traumatised seeing it, never mind the accidents that happen because the motorists are distracted etc etc etc.   Even the directors could see that.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

It does and you were quick enough to jump in and argue without offering anything on the suicide aspect or the benefits this project may deliver. Says it all really but if you really do want to discuss the subject in the OP then go right ahead - no-one is stopping you.

I see no benefits to be honest, if people are going to commit suicide, they will find somewhere to do this. not being horrible, but truthful, all you are doing is denying them one place they can.
So I am offering plenty, you need to seat back down in your high chair and get on with the debate.

harvesmom wrote:

Didge wrote:



I see no benefits to be honest, if people are going to commit suicide, they will find somewhere to do this. not being horrible, but truthful, all you are doing is denying them one place they can.
So I am offering plenty, you need to seat back down in your high chair and get on with the debate.

I was actually about to post this Didge, it sound harsh but if someone is hell bent on committing suicide they are just not going to go to this bridge are they... they'll find another way.

I notice a couple of people on here have said it is a subject close to their heart as they know someone who has committed suicide. Well so do I , but he shot himself. So unless their friends have thrown themselves off a bridge I am not seeing the relevance to be honest.

Didge wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

I was actually about to post this Didge, it sound harsh but if someone is hell bent on committing suicide they are just not going to go to this bridge are they... they'll find another way.

I notice a couple of people on here have said it is a subject close to their heart as they know someone who has committed suicide. Well so do I , but he shot himself. So unless their friends have thrown themselves off a bridge I am not seeing the relevance to be honest.

Agreed, I think we all know people who have and if people know and have seen signs of this, they would agree with me money would be better spent on places that could help them, not money to me wasted on just preventing one area where people can commit suicide. People who go through this have reached such limits of despair many of us cannot even begin to understand, hence why any help prevention is best served in places where they can seek help.

harvesmom wrote:

Didge wrote:



Agreed, I think we all know people who have and if people know and have seen signs of this, they would agree with me money would be better spent on places that could help them, not money to me wasted on just preventing one area where people can commit suicide. People who go through this have reached such limits of despair many of us cannot even begin to understand, hence why any help prevention is best served in places where they can seek help.

I do understand that sometimes there are no outward signs that people are suicidal, but as I said if they make this bridge 'safe' there are other places if people are determined.

I can't imagine what would make a person want to end their life but I fully agree with you that before they get to this point the money would be better spent on more freely available counselling services etc.

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:


I think that calling someone a liar when you have just been found lying is a tad unfair.
Anyhoo....

Edds, I don't want to fall out with you, but I will if you keep this up.   I told you, I wanted to protect this forum and I wanted to discuss it with Ben first.   You seem to have done a grand job of trying to have a go at people on here instead of the person that did the hacking and put out the personal information.   What is that I wonder?

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

It does and you were quick enough to jump in and argue without offering anything on the suicide aspect or the benefits this project may deliver. Says it all really but if you really do want to discuss the subject in the OP then go right ahead - no-one is stopping you.

I see no benefits to be honest, if people are going to commit suicide, they will find somewhere to do this. not being horrible, but truthful, all you are doing is denying them one place they can.
So I am offering plenty, you need to seat back down in your high chair and get on with the debate.

lovedust wrote:

Didge wrote:



I see no benefits to be honest, if people are going to commit suicide, they will find somewhere to do this. not being horrible, but truthful, all you are doing is denying them one place they can.
So I am offering plenty, you need to seat back down in your high chair and get on with the debate.

Didge, this assumption seems to be quite common, but ISTR reading in the case of those people who've survived the fall from the Golden Gate it isn't so;the vast majority  have been found to be still alive years and years later.

One of them is a lovely chap called Kevin Hines. He said he realised he still wanted to live the moment his feet left the bridge.

Didge wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

I do understand that sometimes there are no outward signs that people are suicidal, but as I said if they make this bridge 'safe' there are other places if people are determined.

I can't imagine what would make a person want to end their life but I fully agree with you that before they get to this point the money would be better spent on more freely available counselling services etc.

That is why I think the money is wasted, after Uni, I worked for a short while with British rail who as I am sure you are aware get their fair share of suicide attempts and was involved in two fatal incidents and one non-fatal, not actually driving, but seen the aftermath and the devastation it has on drivers, one of which could never drive a car let alone a train again..There was no one spot in all 3 either and this is just one of so many different ways people choose to take their lives. The reason I mention that, is it would be near impossible to prevent people committed to killing themselves this way.

I just think all these millions could help prevent some talking their lives full stop, not just ensure that they just go somewhere else.

lovedust wrote:
How can they be the exception that proves the rule when they represent they entire population of people who've survived the fall from the Golden Gate. It's typical for the GG, not exceptional.

harvesmom wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is why I think the money is wasted, after Uni, I worked for a short while with British rail who as I am sure you are aware get their fair share of suicide attempts and was involved in two fatal incidents and one non-fatal, not actually driving, but seen the aftermath and the devastation it has on drivers, one of which could never drive a car let alone a train again..There was no one spot in all 3 either and this is just one of so many different ways people choose to take their lives. The reason I mention that, is it would be near impossible to prevent people committed to killing themselves this way.

I just think all these millions could help prevent some talking their lives full stop, not just ensure that they just go somewhere else.

100% agree (there's a first    ) people seem to forget when they commit suicide by throwing themselves off a motorway bridge or as you say under a train, they are having a lifelong impact on other people.

Didge wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

100% agree (there's a first    ) people seem to forget when they commit suicide by throwing themselves off a motorway bridge or as you say under a train, they are having a lifelong impact on other people.

lol am sure we agree on more than you might realise.


Anyway am tired, glad this debate got back on track

Night all

lovedust wrote:
In 1978, a study called 'Where Are They Now' was published. It concerned 515 people who'd been prevented from jumping the Golden Gate Bridge. It found that 94% of the subjects were alive 26 years later on average, or had died of natural causes. So the evidence suggests that preventing suicide at this location for those drawn to that spot for that tragic purpose has in fact, led to the life being saved long-term, as opposed to merely being prolonged.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Odd it takes two or more to argue, so that is gobbledygook Irn, I just know you too well.
Happy to discuss, as yet have not seen you ask me anything on the matter.

It does and you were quick enough to jump in and argue without offering anything on the suicide aspect or the benefits this project may deliver. Says it all really but if you really do want to discuss the subject in the OP then go right ahead - no-one is stopping you.

I see no benefits to be honest, if people are going to commit suicide, they will find somewhere to do this. not being horrible, but truthful, all you are doing is denying them one place they can.
So I am offering plenty, you need to seat back down in your high chair and get on with the debate.

lovedust wrote:
In 1978, a study called 'Where Are They Now' was published. It concerned 515 people who'd been prevented from jumping the Golden Gate Bridge. It found that 94% of the subjects were alive 26 years later on average, or had died of natural causes. So the evidence suggests that preventing suicide at this location for those drawn to that spot for that tragic purpose has in fact, led to the life being saved long-term, as opposed to merely being prolonged.

lovedust wrote:
In 1978, a study called 'Where Are They Now' was published. It concerned 515 people who'd been prevented from jumping the Golden Gate Bridge. It found that 94% of the subjects were alive 26 years later on average, or had died of natural causes. So the evidence suggests that preventing suicide at this location for those drawn to that spot for that tragic purpose has in fact, led to the life being saved long-term, as opposed to merely being prolonged.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



I see no benefits to be honest, if people are going to commit suicide, they will find somewhere to do this. not being horrible, but truthful, all you are doing is denying them one place they can.
So I am offering plenty, you need to seat back down in your high chair and get on with the debate.

Well I'm glad you have a last seen sense and decided to offer some content on the subject but really, you see no benefits?

From the link I provided....

Various District personnel, including District patrol officers, ironworkers, painters, laborers and others, undertake suicide prevention activities that pose safety risks when they are called upon or volunteer to intercede by undertaking efforts to prevent individuals from jumping from the Bridge. There is a public purpose to be served by construction of a physical suicide deterrent system to mitigate these safety risks to District personnel;

 Suicide incidents also impose risks to users of the Bridge sidewalks, as well as to motorists who may be distracted while driving across the Golden Gate Bridge. Thus, there is a public purpose to be served by construction of a physical suicide deterrent system to mitigate safety risks to these users of the Golden Gate Bridge;

But you say the suicide prevention net just denies them one place they can. So on that score you believe that there should be no safety net so that people can jump to their death and that no attempt should be made to prevent that or those that are mentioned in the report. Well let's just set up approved suicide jumping areas so that they can do and not be denied the opportunity to do so.

Seriously!!!

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



I see no benefits to be honest, if people are going to commit suicide, they will find somewhere to do this. not being horrible, but truthful, all you are doing is denying them one place they can.
So I am offering plenty, you need to seat back down in your high chair and get on with the debate.

Well I'm glad you have a last seen sense and decided to offer some content on the subject but really, you see no benefits?

From the link I provided....

Various District personnel, including District patrol officers, ironworkers, painters, laborers and others, undertake suicide prevention activities that pose safety risks when they are called upon or volunteer to intercede by undertaking efforts to prevent individuals from jumping from the Bridge. There is a public purpose to be served by construction of a physical suicide deterrent system to mitigate these safety risks to District personnel;

 Suicide incidents also impose risks to users of the Bridge sidewalks, as well as to motorists who may be distracted while driving across the Golden Gate Bridge. Thus, there is a public purpose to be served by construction of a physical suicide deterrent system to mitigate safety risks to these users of the Golden Gate Bridge;

But you say the suicide prevention net just denies them one place they can. So on that score you believe that there should be no safety net so that people can jump to their death and that no attempt should be made to prevent that or those that are mentioned in the report. Well let's just set up approved suicide jumping areas so that they can do and not be denied the opportunity to do so.

Seriously!!!

lovedust wrote:
In 1978, a study called 'Where Are They Now' was published. It concerned 515 people who'd been prevented from jumping the Golden Gate Bridge. It found that 94% of the subjects were alive 26 years later on average, or had died of natural causes. So the evidence suggests that preventing suicide at this location for those drawn to that spot for that tragic purpose has in fact, led to the life being saved long-term, as opposed to merely being prolonged.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



I see no benefits to be honest, if people are going to commit suicide, they will find somewhere to do this. not being horrible, but truthful, all you are doing is denying them one place they can.
So I am offering plenty, you need to seat back down in your high chair and get on with the debate.

Well I'm glad you have a last seen sense and decided to offer some content on the subject but really, you see no benefits?

From the link I provided....

Various District personnel, including District patrol officers, ironworkers, painters, laborers and others, undertake suicide prevention activities that pose safety risks when they are called upon or volunteer to intercede by undertaking efforts to prevent individuals from jumping from the Bridge. There is a public purpose to be served by construction of a physical suicide deterrent system to mitigate these safety risks to District personnel;

 Suicide incidents also impose risks to users of the Bridge sidewalks, as well as to motorists who may be distracted while driving across the Golden Gate Bridge. Thus, there is a public purpose to be served by construction of a physical suicide deterrent system to mitigate safety risks to these users of the Golden Gate Bridge;

But you say the suicide prevention net just denies them one place they can. So on that score you believe that there should be no safety net so that people can jump to their death and that no attempt should be made to prevent that or those that are mentioned in the report. Well let's just set up approved suicide jumping areas so that they can do and not be denied the opportunity to do so.

Seriously!!!

Lol, I did that  hours ago, which you had to wait until I was offline, funny that 

So first of all you had to wait until I went offline, second you go by what the articles itself says and thus cannot think for yourself, well that figures, none of which actually countered any of my points, in that if you waste the money here, people we still go and commit suicide elsewhere.

Wow, score Irn, anything else you can plagerize from the article, which proved nothing on my point, or can we see you use something thought by yourself??

So your basically claiming that money to help prevent people attempt suiicide is not as good as stopping one such area, woo, you know little about the subject then

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:
In 1978, a study called 'Where Are They Now' was published. It concerned 515 people who'd been prevented from jumping the Golden Gate Bridge. It found that 94% of the subjects were alive 26 years later on average, or had died of natural causes. So the evidence suggests that preventing suicide at this location for those drawn to that spot for that tragic purpose has in fact, led to the life being saved long-term, as opposed to merely being prolonged.

Very flawed, as this only looks at one place, it does not take into account many other ways to attempt to kill themselves, if we are to go with the claims that is.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Lol, I did that  hours ago, which you had to wait until I was offline, funny that 

So first of all you had to wait until I went offline, second you go by what the articles itself says and thus cannot think for yourself, well that figures, none of which actually countered any of my points, in that if you waste the money here, people we still go and commit suicide elsewhere.

Wow, score Irn, anything else you can plagerize from the article, which proved nothing on my point, or can we see you use something thought by yourself??

So your basically claiming that money to help prevent people attempt suiicide is not as good as stopping one such area, woo, you know little about the subject then

Eh, I was away doing something else and waiting for you to go offline before posting something is just your imagination running away with you. Some people do have a life beyond here. And you weren't really away were you? lol.
Well if you know so much about the subject of why people want to end their lives then go right ahead and tell me how we can reach out to them and prevent it by spending money to stop them.
You just believe that we should do nothing and just leave them to jump away without doing anything physically to prevent them doing so or the dangers it causes to the people named in the extract I gave you.
I gave you the reason why the board of directors want to go ahead which is something I agree with and if you really cared you would agree as well.
I knew all along that you didn't care about the suicide aspects of this discussion and you were only arguing for the sake of it and you have just confirmed that.

Well done.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Very flawed, as this only looks at one place, it does not take into account many other ways to attempt to kill themselves, if we are to go with the claims that is.

Well you would say that wouldn't you.

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:
In 1978, a study called 'Where Are They Now' was published. It concerned 515 people who'd been prevented from jumping the Golden Gate Bridge. It found that 94% of the subjects were alive 26 years later on average, or had died of natural causes. So the evidence suggests that preventing suicide at this location for those drawn to that spot for that tragic purpose has in fact, led to the life being saved long-term, as opposed to merely being prolonged.

Very flawed, as this only looks at one place, it does not take into account many other ways to attempt to kill themselves, if we are to go with the claims that is.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:

Lol, I did that  hours ago, which you had to wait until I was offline, funny that 

So first of all you had to wait until I went offline, second you go by what the articles itself says and thus cannot think for yourself, well that figures, none of which actually countered any of my points, in that if you waste the money here, people we still go and commit suicide elsewhere.

Wow, score Irn, anything else you can plagerize from the article, which proved nothing on my point, or can we see you use something thought by yourself??

So your basically claiming that money to help prevent people attempt suiicide is not as good as stopping one such area, woo, you know little about the subject then

Eh, I was away doing something else and waiting for you to go offline before posting something is just your imagination running away with you. Some people do have a life beyond here. And you weren't really away were you? lol.
Well if you know so much about the subject of why people want to end their lives then go right ahead and tell me how we can reach out to them and prevent it by spending money to stop them.
You just believe that we should do nothing and just leave them to jump away without doing anything physically to prevent them doing so or the dangers it causes to the people named in the extract I gave you.
I gave you the reason why the board of directors want to go ahead which is something I agree with and if you really cared you would agree as well.
I knew all along that you didn't care about the suicide aspects of this discussion and you were only arguing for the sake of it and you have just confirmed that.

Well done.

That old chestnut, you were doing something, yeah sure I believe you, not.
I was away, asleep actually untill woken up by commotions outside, hey ho, sad that you limit yourself to the poster as you always do an still cannot provide anything meaningful. 
So all you did was not research and just go off an idea, wow.
So again you go again with the childish guilt trip response as if now I do not care because I disagree that the money would be better spent on prevention,

How childish.

So you are only capable of arguing a poor lam claim on posters.

Epic fail:

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/state-suicide-prevention-planning-brief.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_Strategic_Direction_Full_Version-a.pdf

http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/nssp

http://www.sprc.org/

lovedust wrote:

Didge wrote:



Very flawed, as this only looks at one place, it does not take into account many other ways to attempt to kill themselves, if we are to go with the claims that is.

But the whole point of the 'Where Are They Now' study's conclusion was that at least the vast majority of the Golden Gate survivors didn't go on to kill themselves in other ways. So I'm not sure why you think "other ways" would be relevant in a study geared specifically toward preventing the deaths of those who've attempted suicide at the Golden Gate Bridge?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


That old chestnut, you were doing something, yeah sure I believe you, not.
I was away, asleep actually untill woken up by commotions outside, hey ho, sad that you limit yourself to the poster as you always do an still cannot provide anything meaningful. 
So all you did was not research and just go off an idea, wow.
So again you go again with the childish guilt trip response as if now I do not care because I disagree that the money would be better spent on prevention,

How childish.

So you are only capable of arguing a poor lam claim on posters.

Epic fail:

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/state-suicide-prevention-planning-brief.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_Strategic_Direction_Full_Version-a.pdf

http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/nssp

http://www.sprc.org/

So what were you doing the last hour or so?

See, there you go giving me something in links that are not your ideas - just something from somewhere else.

It's very late Didge but I'll expect a full report from you in the morning with your spending plans on how the money should be spent on how to stop people jumping and the dangers it causes to others.

Don't let me down and don't accuse someone of doing something that you have just gone and done yourself.

You'll learn and on that note I'll bid you a very good morning.

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:

But the whole point of the 'Where Are They Now' study's conclusion was that at least the vast majority of the Golden Gate survivors didn't go on to kill themselves in other ways. So I'm not sure why you think "other ways" would be relevant in a study geared specifically toward preventing the deaths of those who've attempted suicide at the Golden Gate Bridge?

How does that help the fact over 50% of suicide attempts are made by guns?
22% by strangulation, hanging , suffocation?
about 18% to poisons?
Jumping amounts to a very small percentage over all of suicide attempts in the states, so maybe if you want to prevent, guns would be the avenue to stop people having?

lovedust wrote:

Didge wrote:



How does that help the fact over 50% of suicide attempts are made by guns?
22% by strangulation, hanging , suffocation?
about 18% to poisons?
Jumping amounts to a very small percentage over all of suicide attempts in the states, so maybe if you want to prevent, guns would be the avenue to stop people having?

The question specific to people who contemplate throwing themselves off this particular bridge must surely be:
Does the scientific evidence suggest preventing the suicide of those people who  try to throw themselves off this particular bridge will also save their life in the longer term? And the answer is an overwhelming "Yes".

I don't know how to prevent the suicides of people who try to shoot themselves; I wish I did. But surely that's no reason to resist helping the attempted jumpers *here*, the vast majority (94% according to WATN) of whom will go on to live long lives if preventative measures are taken?

Joy Division wrote:Didge , surely it's better to habe these measures in place than not to?,muse folk will try alternative methods, bit some won't ...and may just go there for a cry for help and maybe even jump...safe in the knowledge  of these nets in place ?

Sounds daft maybe , but I think it has to be a positive.

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:

The question specific to people who contemplate throwing themselves off this particular bridge must surely be:
Does the scientific evidence suggest preventing the suicide of those people who  try to throw themselves off this particular bridge will also save their life in the longer term? And the answer is an overwhelming "Yes".

I don't know how to prevent the suicides of people who try to shoot themselves; I wish I did. But surely that's no reason to resist helping the attempted jumpers *here*, the vast majority (94% according to WATN) of whom will go on to live long lives if preventative measures are taken?

Well surely the preventative measure needs to incorporate all methods and not just one, showing why to view something based off just jumping would be flawed, especially, when jumping amounts  to around 2-5% of suicide attempts in the US Lovedust. This a huge amount of money is going on to one preventative project which does not take into account how as seen many other methods are more prolific. This again surely the money would be better spent on preventative measure for all people at risk, not just those who might choose the bridge?

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:



Well surely the preventative measure needs to incorporate all methods and not just one, showing why to view something based off just jumping would be flawed, especially, when jumping amounts  to around 2-5% of suicide attempts in the US Lovedust. This a huge amount of money is going on to one preventative project which does not take into account how as seen many other methods are more prolific. This again surely the money would be better spent on preventative measure for all people at risk, not just those who might choose the bridge?

That's a good call  didge ,,invest money into all or many forms of suicide prevention...this already happens , but probably not enough investment in all or most areas...but the bridge will still be a good thing I think
....some may go to the bridge, jump off and land in the nets, still alive bit with good for thought, perhaps some may be glad those nets where there. But others intent may find alternative ways,,,,

But it will save SOME lives.

lovedust wrote:

Didge wrote:



How does that help the fact over 50% of suicide attempts are made by guns?
22% by strangulation, hanging , suffocation?
about 18% to poisons?
Jumping amounts to a very small percentage over all of suicide attempts in the states, so maybe if you want to prevent, guns would be the avenue to stop people having?

The question specific to people who contemplate throwing themselves off this particular bridge must surely be:
Does the scientific evidence suggest preventing the suicide of those people who  try to throw themselves off this particular bridge will also save their life in the longer term? And the answer is an overwhelming "Yes".

I don't know how to prevent the suicides of people who try to shoot themselves; I wish I did. But surely that's no reason to resist helping the attempted jumpers *here*, the vast majority (94% according to WATN) of whom will go on to live long lives if preventative measures are taken?

lovedust wrote:
Didge, you seem to have moved from saying a safety net is a bad idea because  it won't ultimately stop jumpers to saying a net is a bad idea because only 2% - 5% of suicides jump. Well, this whole topic is about a sub-section of that 3-5%, and the evidence available suggests prevention saves lives long-term in 94% of these cases.

lovedust wrote:
A study following up on the lives 515 attempted suicides off the bridge from 1937 - 1971 isn't evidence how?

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think Nems has hit it on the head:



Sassy started this whole thread in order to start a fight.  Why?  Well, the answer lies in something that Nems pointed to: sympathy or attention.

Now that sassy has embarrassed herself, she wants to play the victim.  She has been hurt by something she brought up: her own hospitalization.  (Which she brought up to pose as a victim in the first place.)  You are here, JD, because you are a loyal sassy posse groupie.  

Now that that's straight, I'll be off.   

Bet your ears will be burning!

Didge wrote:

lovedust wrote:
A study following up on the lives 515 attempted suicides off the bridge from 1937 - 1971 isn't evidence how?

You are not grasping the point are you?
It is the patrols that prevented the attempts is it not, thus human intervention, thus humans directing these people to the help they need, how will nets do the same job?
You see it was because of human intervention that has led to those they stopped be able to get the best help, a net is not going to achieve the same, humans can help people deter from attempting, hence why the view you are talking is flawed. All that will happen, is the person will try a different method. The difference is in the future there will not be human intervention as it will not be needed at the bridge, this intervention was the difference that helped people at the time and after.