Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

by Guest Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:12 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is hoped a net made of stainless steel cable extending below and from the side of the span will save hundreds of lives.

Officials say they have funds to build a suicide-prevention net at San Francisco Bay's Golden Gate Bridge where two jump to their deaths each month.

The bridge's board of directors will vote on Friday on the plan, which has been debated since the 1950s.

One of the obstacles - the price tag - fell away on Monday as officials announced they had $76m (£45m) for the project.

Most of the new money comes from federal transport programmes, while the rest will be paid out of the bridge's own reserves and state mental health funding.

The bridge district's plan calls for a net made of stainless steel cable extending 20ft below and 20ft from the side of the span.

Anyone who jumps from the span might be injured but would probably survive the fall, say officials.

"For whatever reason, suicidal people don't want to hurt themselves," Dennis Mulligan, the bridge district's general manager, told KTVU-TV.

"At other locations where nets have been up no individual has jumped into the net."

More than 1,400 people have leapt to their deaths from the 4,200-ft suspension bridge since it opened in 1937.

Every year, scores of people contemplating suicide are coaxed not to jump from the span.

On average, there are two suicides a month at the structure.

The Bridge Rail Foundation, which tracks fatalities on the span, said 46 people committed suicide there last year.

Backers of the suicide net were boosted in 2012 when President Barack Obama signed a transportation bill allowing federal funds to flow to the project.

http://news.sky.com/story/1288528/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost

Good idea, if people want to kill themselves they don't want to do something that will hurt them but not kill them, so it sounds logical.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:56 am

Wow, love, think we posted simultaneously!

Then again, I tend to jump in on the tail end of threads without reading. It's a flaw, I can own up to it Smile

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:06 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, well, leaving out the squabbling B.S., may I just suggest that American society treats suicidal people as losers way too much?

We really do treat them like people who just can't hack it, when maybe, we should be looking at the reasons people think they can't live in a world like this and trying to eliminate those reasons.

It reminds me of the Chinese factories that have installed suicide nets. They're treating a symptom, not a disease, and it seems to me like we tend to just ignore the disease when it comes to this issue.

Excellent points and agree and why I think that any money should go to any help out there that can be there for them, as none of us can begin to imagine what many of them go through, but we should at least have as much systems in place for them to feel they are not alone.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:10 am

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, well, leaving out the squabbling B.S., may I just suggest that American society treats suicidal people as losers way too much?

We really do treat them like people who just can't hack it, when maybe, we should be looking at the reasons people think they can't live in a world like this and trying to eliminate those reasons.

It reminds me of the Chinese factories that have installed suicide nets. They're treating a symptom, not a disease, and it seems to me like we tend to just ignore the disease when it comes to this issue.

Excellent points and agree and why I think that any money should go to any help out there that can be there for them, as none of us can begin to imagine what many of them go through, but we should at least have as much systems in place for them to feel they are not alone.

I actually think the Aussies have it right on this one, what with "Are you OK? Day" -- that is one of the most compassionate campaigns I've ever heard of.

I see that idea spreading within Aussie society as well -- not that I know it well, of course, but Australian YouTube personality Caitlyn Hill once talked very casually about how she'd been "a bit depressed" and I thought about how that is something a lot of Americans would feel like they had to keep to themselves.

https://www.ruokday.com/

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:14 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

Excellent points and agree and why I think that any money should go to any help out there that can be there for them, as none of us can begin to imagine what many of them go through, but we should at least have as much systems in place for them to feel they are not alone.

I actually think the Aussies have it right on this one, what with "Are you OK? Day" -- that is one of the most compassionate campaigns I've ever heard of.

I see that idea spreading within Aussie society as well -- not that I know it well, of course, but Australian YouTube personality Caitlyn Hill once talked very casually about how she'd been "a bit depressed" and I thought about how that is something a lot of Americans would feel like they had to keep to themselves.

https://www.ruokday.com/

Very interesting Ben

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:22 am

I don't think anyone's advocating just building a net and then forgetting about other forms of intervention. But a net *is* one of the things some experts think would be helpful:

"Scientific evidence says a barrier reduces suicides, because thoughts of suicide are transient". -

Eve R. Meyer, Executive Director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:26 am

lovedust wrote:
I don't think anyone's advocating just building a net and then forgetting about other forms of intervention. But a net *is* one of the things some experts think would be helpful:

"Scientific evidence says a barrier reduces suicides, because thoughts of suicide are transient". -

Eve R. Meyer, Executive Director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention

But does it reduce suicides?
You are going off what humans do in prevention, which is more than what a net can do Lovedust, I would have the money go to 24 hour patrols on the Bridge and centers that can help people working in tandem at least then you have human intervention and thus people who can help lead those in trouble to the right people, where as a net is just going to deter them using the place. So to me I fail to see how it will reduce any suicides, because on how human intervention works, which provides way more than a net does, so I think they have got this view badly wrong as seen.
You cannot make a comparison to humans and a net. You take away the human intervention part, they will just go elsewhere and nobody is there to stop them, where at least here patrols are able to do so.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:29 am

Just to add, I was suicidal for a while in my teens, and someone who I didn't really consider a friend, more of an acquaintance, made what was actually a really tiny gesture one day when I was in the midst of my self-destructive thought pattern, but that gesture made an enormous impact on the way I thought about everything ... it might have saved my life. I'm sure she has no idea what it meant to me. You can have such a huge impact on a depressed person without even realizing it.

If a net helps, great, but caring about people is so much more effective.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:52 am

^ That's what Kevin Hines said Ben; if just one person had cared about his distress he wouldn't have thrown himself off the Golden Gate. He's campaigning for the net because total suicide rates can be reduced by reducing access to lethal instruments.

The patrols do great work but they're just not in a position to stop everyone. There were 46 suicides last year.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:56 am

lovedust wrote:^ That's what Kevin Hines said Ben; if just one person had cared about his distress he wouldn't have thrown himself off the Golden Gate. He's campaigning for the net because total suicide rates can be reduced by reducing access to lethal instruments.

The patrols do great work but they're just not in a position to stop everyone. There were 46 suicides last year.

Sorry Lovedust, but as I say their thinking to me is flawed in that they think it will prevent lives, when it was patrolman that saved lives themselves, this is what made the difference and how they must have provided help after. To me it is a serious flaw to think that people will just give up on an attempt because there is a net there. I hope you are right, I truly do, but think this will only lead to a rise in people dying from suicide attempts in the area. I think it will also lose the valuable support they gave also.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:05 am

^ Very sorry you felt that way btw, Ben. xx

by Lone Wolf Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:44 am

IF somebody is truly depressed enough to top themselves, no nets or barriers will ever stop them...

Nets and fences aren't put on bridges and roadways and carparks primarily to stop those suicides ~ but to prevent falling bodies and other thrown/dropped objects from hitting boats, cars, trucks or pedestrians down below ~ and generally messing up the local landscape..

And they make life that much easier for those poor souls employed to clean up around those places.

IF the community genuinely desired to reduce suicide rates, then they will be pushing for their governments to increase funding of research and counselling into the causes and prevention of those suicides, and the detection and treatment of depression.. Basketball

AND NOT falsely re-labelling safety barriers as "Suicide Nets" for what appears to be only yet another politically-inspired headline grabbing stunt.

by eddie Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:55 am

Lone Wolf wrote:

IF somebody is truly depressed enough to top themselves, no nets or barriers will ever stop them...

Nets and fences aren't put on bridges and roadways and carparks primarily to stop those suicides ~ but to prevent falling bodies and other thrown/dropped objects from hitting boats, cars, trucks or pedestrians down below ~ and generally messing up the local landscape..

And they make life that much easier for those poor souls employed to clean up around those places.

IF the community genuinely desired to reduce suicide rates, then they will be pushing for their governments to increase funding of research and counselling into the causes and prevention of those suicides, and the detection and treatment of depression..

AND NOT falsely re-labelling safety barriers as "Suicide Nets" for what appears to be only yet another politically-inspired headline grabbing stunt.

Hate to say, it but this is a good post.

by nicko Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:56 am

Have to agree!!

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:19 am

Sometimes it can take the loss of a loved one to suicide to have a better understanding on such issues.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:01 pm

The Directors of the Bridge don't just have a duty to stop would be suicides. They also have a duty to their workers and the people who use the bridge. They know that the huge number of would-be suicides have a detrimental affect on their workers, both from the trauma is they try and stop one and fail, and from the trauma is they try and stop one and are injured. There have also been accidents that have been caused by motorists being distracted.

Mental health advocates in California have been calling for this to be done for quite some time, and it isn't a project by itself, it is integrated into Proposition 63 which treats over one million Californians with mental health problems every year and has been advocated by mental health experts for some time:

(San Francisco) – California Senate leader and Proposition 63 author Darrell Steinberg was joined at a Golden Gate Bridge press conference today by State Senator Mark Leno, mental health advocates and the Golden Gate Bridge District to illustrate the final funding plan for a suicide barrier at the Golden Gate Bridge. Supporters urged the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District’s Board of Directors to approve a funding plan of $76 million for their construction when that Board votes on the proposal tomorrow.

“While there are on average one million Californians receiving intensive mental health care and preventative treatment every year thanks to Prop 63, this comparatively modest Prop 63 contribution for suicide prevention at the Golden Gate Bridge will probably become its most publicly recognizable benefit,” said Senator Steinberg (D – Sacramento). “You will likely never hear of the 40,000 San Franciscans who are annually receiving mental healthcare thanks to Prop 63. However, San Franciscans and millions of visitors from around the world will see these suicide barriers that were made possible, in part, by Proposition 63.”

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District’s Board of Directors will meet tomorrow to consider approving a funding plan of $76 million for the Construction of the Golden Gate Bridge Physical Suicide Deterrent System Project. The project would be funded through combined federal dollars, local tolls, and Mental Health Services Act (Prop 63) funds. The seven million dollar contribution from Prop 63, a final piece of the funding puzzle made possible in this year’s state budget at the prompting of Senator Steinberg and Senator Mark Leno, enables the District to construct the barrier.

“I am proud to partner with Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg to support the state budget allocation of seven million dollars for the suicide prevention net, which will help end the tragic and needless loss of life we have witnessed for decades off the Golden Gate Bridge,” said Sen. Leno. “We must fight mental illness on many fronts, and this budget action is a critical component of saving the lives of people who might not see that their brightest days are ahead of them. This suicide prevention barrier will give them and their loved ones that chance. It will save hundreds of lives.”

The fulfillment of the funding strategy comes after years of advocacy by mental healthcare experts, who have campaigned for financing and against the misinformed presumption that those intent on ending their lives would simply go elsewhere when confronted by a barrier at the Golden Gate. Research shows the opposite effect. A 2009 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that, “Overall, the data on barriers at jumping sites show that they are effective in reducing suicides from the site itself. In addition, no study has found an increase in suicides from other nearby structures after a barrier is built.”

The Golden Gate has been a magnet for suicides for more than 70 years. Worldwide, it is second only to the Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge in China as the bridge used most frequently by people ending their lives. SAn estimated 1,600 people have committed suicide from the Golden Gate since the bridge opened in 1937. In 2013, while more than 100 would-be jumpers were fortunately stopped by bridge workers, a record number of 46 people killed themselves at the Golden Gate.

“With the allocation of funds to raise the net at the Golden Gate Bridge, we are putting a stop to 77 years of needless deaths and devastation of families. We are finally showing the rest of the world that San Francisco can be as progressive as it claims to be,” said Kevin Hines, who survived a jump from the Golden Gate Bridge. “Suicide nets have gone up all over the globe and saved countless lives. As a native and fourth generation San Franciscan, I am so proud that we are doing the right thing. Thank you all for your tireless efforts on this issue: Senator Steinberg, Senator Leno, Assemblyman Ammiano, the Bridge Rail Foundation, The Psychiatric Foundation of Northern California, Eric Steel and all organizations who have fought for this very outcome. Finally, we are placing higher value and worth on people over a piece of bright red iron.”

The Mental Health Services Act was created under Proposition 63 when passed by the voters in 2004, and since then has generated $9.5 billion for mental health services through a one-percent tax on personal income exceeding one million dollars. According to the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, approximately one million Californians are served annually through Prop 63-funded Full Service Partnerships, Prevention and Early Intervention programs, Behavioral Health Courts, and mental health care in schools and colleges.
- See more at: http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/news/2014-06-25-golden-gate-bridge-suicide-barrier-now-possible-thanks-proposition-63-funding#sthash.loDXX9BN.dpuf

It seems to me that they have had a lot of people who know far more about mental health that we do, studying this for quite some time, so I'm very happy that what they have recommended seems to be happening.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:04 pm

Still not the best way to help people with such tendencies, this will only help a very small element an think the money as stated would be better spent as stated already.

I understand the reasoning for those who have to go through such traumas, but for potential people who are suicidal I see very little benefits at all

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:09 pm

Well Didge, those who have studied it for years disagree, have loads of evidence to support their views, so I know who I believe.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:12 pm

Sassy wrote:Well Didge, those who have studied it for years disagree, have loads of evidence to support their views, so I know who I believe.

Really, you are talking about a very small window of people that choose to take this option of killing themselves, of which there are many experts. Well as stated and shown I have shown other experts and what they say is best, again the view here is based off how human intervention helped to now advocate it will create less people attempting which as seen is very flawed to use the same logic off the use of a net.
Time will tell on this, and again I hope you are right, but I very much doubt it, as seen by the many points I have made

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:16 pm

You didn't actually notice that it was part of a plan helping one million people in California with mental health problems a year then. Ah well.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:18 pm

Sassy wrote:You didn't actually notice that it was part of a plan helping one million people in California with mental health problems a year then. Ah well.

Yes I did thanks, oh well, I guess avoiding my points is what you do best

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:22 pm

I'm not avoiding any point. The evidence is that it has been asked for as part of a plan that helps one million californians a year by people who know what they are talking about. Therefore I am glad that they have been listened to to, and glad that they have such a large scheme that they think the money they are putting into this is quite small. Therefore, I see no point in arguing with you over something you know nothing about and they know a hell of a lot. So carry on without me.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:26 pm

Sassy wrote:I'm not avoiding any point. The evidence is that it has been asked for as part of a plan that helps one million californians a year by people who know what they are talking about. Therefore I am glad that they have been listened to to, and glad that they have such a large scheme that they think the money they are putting into this is quite small. Therefore, I see no point in arguing with you over something you know nothing about and they know a hell of a lot. So carry on without me.

Really so the claim I know nothing about even though clearly I do and you just repeat yourself proves you cannot take on my points, Jesus get a grip sassy, that is boring, if you knew about this you would be able to respond, clearly as seen you cannot and thus run away

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:20 pm

I'm afraid 'clearly you do' doesn't cut the mustard. So perhaps you would like to tell me your qualifications in psychiatry, the in-depth research you have done vis-a-vis the movement of suicides to other places is one place is protected, as they have done above, the overseeing of budgets in excess of £20mill for the relief of mental illness, and endorsements by psychiatric experts to say you are qualified to know more than those who have done the study.

As a reminder:

The fulfillment of the funding strategy comes after years of advocacy by mental healthcare experts, who have campaigned for financing and against the misinformed presumption that those intent on ending their lives would simply go elsewhere when confronted by a barrier at the Golden Gate. Research shows the opposite effect. A 2009 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that, “Overall, the data on barriers at jumping sites show that they are effective in reducing suicides from the site itself. In addition, no study has found an increase in suicides from other nearby structures after a barrier is built.”

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:29 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, well, leaving out the squabbling B.S., may I just suggest that American society treats suicidal people as losers way too much?

We really do treat them like people who just can't hack it, when maybe, we should be looking at the reasons people think they can't live in a world like this and trying to eliminate those reasons.

It reminds me of the Chinese factories that have installed suicide nets. They're treating a symptom, not a disease, and it seems to me like we tend to just ignore the disease when it comes to this issue.

That is the core philosophy of conservatives, Ben. In their ethical system, you are either functioning properly or you are rejected....reward and punishment. The atypical person need not apply.

But the conservatives on the Board are striving for a kind of benign neglect. They are saying, if we can just get it out of here, we don't have to deal with it. Hence they don't want to face the broader question that Didge is raising. It's like they are aware that the press is on them, and they want that to go away...but their core concern is not the suicide issue.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:38 pm

"Finally, after considerable thought, reflection and soul searching, and attentive consideration to
the range of views expressed by members of the public, many of whom have testified as to the
impact and consequences of suicide on their lives,
and in consideration of the fact that 46 people
died in 2013 by jumping off of the Bridge, it is staff’s opinion that construction of the suicide
deterrent simply is the right thing to do at this time."

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:40 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to add, I was suicidal for a while in my teens, and someone who I didn't really consider a friend, more of an acquaintance, made what was actually a really tiny gesture one day when I was in the midst of my self-destructive thought pattern, but that gesture made an enormous impact on the way I thought about everything ... it might have saved my life. I'm sure she has no idea what it meant to me. You can have such a huge impact on a depressed person without even realizing it.

If a net helps, great, but caring about people is so much more effective.

Did you ever tell her that? Perhaps an unpaid debt??

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:54 pm

Sassy wrote:Well Didge, those who have studied it for years disagree, have loads of evidence to support their views, so I know who I believe.

I don't think they disagree with Didge, sass. Again, they are focusing only on the bridge when they say people haven't been going to nearby buildings to jump:

American Journal of Psychiatry wrote:A 2009 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that, “Overall, the data on barriers at jumping sites show that they are effective in reducing suicides from the site itself. In addition, "no study has found an increase in suicides from other nearby structures after a barrier is built.”

You can see the bias of this reporter. They are still tied to the Bridge in that they only look for immediate alternatives. They are not taking the wider picture into account.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:56 pm

Sassy wrote:I'm afraid 'clearly you do' doesn't cut the mustard. So perhaps you would like to tell me your qualifications in psychiatry, the in-depth research you have done vis-a-vis the movement of suicides to other places is one place is protected, as they have done above, the overseeing of budgets in excess of £20mill for the relief of mental illness, and endorsements by psychiatric experts to say you are qualified to know more than those who have done the study.

As a reminder:

The fulfillment of the funding strategy comes after years of advocacy by mental healthcare experts, who have campaigned for financing and against the misinformed presumption that those intent on ending their lives would simply go elsewhere when confronted by a barrier at the Golden Gate. Research shows the opposite effect. A 2009 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that, “Overall, the data on barriers at jumping sites show that they are effective in reducing suicides from the site itself. In addition, no study has found an increase in suicides from other nearby structures after a barrier is built.”

Dearme, more qualifications than you have that is for sure and so again you excuse answering my points and copy what some others say proving you have not the first clue what you are talking about and cannot answer my points

You are expose what a fraud you are sassy

Try again, last chance:

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Sassy wrote:Well Didge, those who have studied it for years disagree, have loads of evidence to support their views, so I know who I believe.

I don't think they disagree with Didge, sass. Again, they are focusing only on the bridge when they say people haven't been going to nearby buildings to jump. They are still tied to the Bridge in that they only look for immediate alternatives. They are not taking the wider picture into account.

Bang on the money, people are focusing solely on a tiny fraction of the problem, where jumping accounts again for a very small fraction of the methods used.

Sorry Quill but I get bored of sassy claiming she knows something when seen she cannot answer for herself.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:04 pm

They are most definitely taking the wider picture into account, as this is just a small part of Proposition 63, which as it has been undertaken in your area, you should know about Quill.

So Didge, you are telling us for definite you have qualifications in psychiatry yes?

And I haven't claimed to know anything, I have said that those who have made an in detail study of this, as part of Proposition 63 know a lot more about it than you, or I, or Quill and I'm going to take a lot more notice of them than I am of you.

Do I take it you will be voting against this tonight Quill?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:06 pm

Sassy wrote:They are most definitely taking the wider picture into account, as this is just a small part of Proposition 63, which as it has been undertaken in your area, you should know about Quill.

So Didge, you are telling us for definite you have qualifications in psychiatry yes?

And I haven't claimed to know anything, I have said that those who have made an in detail study of this, as part of Proposition 63 know a lot more about it than you, or I, or Quill and I'm going to take a lot more notice of them than I am of you.

Do I take it you will be voting against this tonight Quill?

In psychology yes I do, which is your way of side tracking from my points as seen you know fuck all about any of this, read something and then claim you know it well when as seen you cannot even respond to the points I have made.

You are so easy to expose

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:06 pm

We have to remember that, in the wider world, they are still taking about $77-million (up from $76-million) out of the economy that would otherwise be available for mental healthcare. That's money spent of a structure, and while it may be a mild deterrent, other things might be more effective if the money were to put there.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:10 pm

Anyway as seen sassy knows very little on the subject can only post what others say and started this to try poorly to shame a poster and end up with egg on her face as she is still harping on about that.

Exposed again

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:10 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:They are most definitely taking the wider picture into account, as this is just a small part of Proposition 63, which as it has been undertaken in your area, you should know about Quill.

So Didge, you are telling us for definite you have qualifications in psychiatry yes?

And I haven't claimed to know anything, I have said that those who have made an in detail study of this, as part of Proposition 63 know a lot more about it than you, or I, or Quill and I'm going to take a lot more notice of them than I am of you.

Do I take it you will be voting against this tonight Quill?

In psychology yes I do, which is your way of side tracking from my points as seen you know fuck all about any of this, read something and then claim you know it well when as seen you cannot even respond to the points I have made.

You are so easy to expose

There is a difference between psychology and psychiatry and you have not made an in depth study of this particular problem in this particular area.. So what qualifications to you have in psychiatry? You are exposing nothing, because I have claimed nothing, I simply hold more faith in mental health experts who have studied this problem in depth than in you.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:We have to remember that, in the wider world, they are still taking about $77-million (up from $76-million) out of the economy that would otherwise be available for mental healthcare. That's money spent of a structure, and while it may be a mild deterrent, other things might be more effective if the money were to put there.

I suggest you read it again and work out what part of the funding would be available for mental health care. It only makes up a small part. So which way will you be voting tonight Quill?

Maybe this will help:

The seven million dollar contribution from Prop 63, a final piece of the funding puzzle made possible in this year’s state budget at the prompting of Senator Steinberg and Senator Mark Leno, enables the District to construct the barrier.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:14 pm

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

In psychology yes I do, which is your way of side tracking from my points as seen you know fuck all about any of this, read something and then claim you know it well when as seen you cannot even respond to the points I have made.

You are so easy to expose

There is a difference between psychology and psychiatry and you have not made an in depth study of this particular problem in this particular area.. So what qualifications to you have in psychiatry? You are exposing nothing, because I have claimed nothing, I simply hold more faith in mental health experts who have studied this problem in depth than in you.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Fuck me that was hilarious, so in psychiatry they do not study psychology then Sassy?
I have made a very in death study, as seen guns amount to suicide deaths far more than people jumping off bridges, half the problem of suicides are by guns, 2-5% jumping, a huge difference. So again you and others go off human intervention and then think nets will accomplish even better results which is absurd, when human intervention does so much more than just coached them not to jump, but helps them seek further help., a net is not going to do that, all it does is deter and they will seek other ways. I hold other experts I have already listed on here that agree in prevention with the people themselves helping them, not nets.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:15 pm

Sassy wrote:They are most definitely taking the wider picture into account, as this is just a small part of Proposition 63, which as it has been undertaken in your area, you should know about Quill.

But Prop. 63 is a portion of the state budget, and it will go on regardless of if the Bridge takes money from the state. The point is that $77-million will be taken from elsewhere, where otherwise it could be used for more effective measures.

Sassy wrote:So Didge, you are telling us for definite you have qualifications in psychiatry yes?

Irrelevant and a bit of a cheap shot. People are entitled to opinions...are you not?

Sassy wrote:And I haven't claimed to know anything, I have said that those who have made an in detail study of this, as part of Proposition 63 know a lot more about it than you, or I, or Quill and I'm going to take a lot more notice of them than I am of you.

Haha...You already take notice of me, sass. You have been stalking me for over 2-years.

Sassy wrote:Do I take it you will be voting against this tonight Quill?

I am not a voting member of the Board of Directors. But you already knew that, didn't you. We discussed it after one of your stalking ventures. This is just another slight twist of the truth you employ.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:19 pm

What is psychology?

Psychology is the study of people: how they think, how they act, react and interact. Psychology is concerned with all aspects of behaviour and the thoughts, feelings and motivation underlying such behaviour.

Psychology is a discipline that is firstly concerned with the normal functioning of the mind and has explored areas such as learning, remembering and the normal psychological development of children. Psychology is one of the fastest growing university subjects and is becoming increasingly available in schools and colleges.

Psychologists deal with the way the mind works and can specialise in a number of areas, such as mental health and educational and occupational psychology.

Psychologists are not usually medically qualified and only a small proportion of people studying psychology degrees will go on to work with patients.

What is psychiatry?

Psychiatry is the study of mental disorders and their diagnosis, management and prevention. Psychiatrists are medical doctors who have qualified in psychiatry. They often combine a broad general caseload alongside an area of special expertise and research.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/psychological-therapies/differences-between-psychology,-psychiatry-and-psychotherapy/

A 2009 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that, “Overall, the data on barriers at jumping sites show that they are effective in reducing suicides from the site itself. In addition, no study has found an increase in suicides from other nearby structures after a barrier is built.”

In other words, they are medical doctors, you aren't.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:21 pm

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:We have to remember that, in the wider world, they are still taking about $77-million (up from $76-million) out of the economy that would otherwise be available for mental healthcare. That's money spent of a structure, and while it may be a mild deterrent, other things might be more effective if the money were to put there.

I suggest you read it again and work out what part of the funding would be available for mental health care. It only makes up a small part. So which way will you be voting tonight Quill?

Maybe this will help:

The seven million dollar contribution from Prop 63, a final piece of the funding puzzle made possible in this year’s state budget at the prompting of Senator Steinberg and Senator Mark Leno, enables the District to construct the barrier.

But the cost of the Bridge suicide prevention, as a whole, is $77-million. You see how you don't pay strict attention, sass?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:23 pm

Sassy wrote:What is psychology?

Psychology is the study of people: how they think, how they act, react and interact. Psychology is concerned with all aspects of behaviour and the thoughts, feelings and motivation underlying such behaviour.

Psychology is a discipline that is firstly concerned with the normal functioning of the mind and has explored areas such as learning, remembering and the normal psychological development of children. Psychology is one of the fastest growing university subjects and is becoming increasingly available in schools and colleges.

Psychologists deal with the way the mind works and can specialise in a number of areas, such as mental health and educational and occupational psychology.

Psychologists are not usually medically qualified and only a small proportion of people studying psychology degrees will go on to work with patients.

What is psychiatry?

Psychiatry is the study of mental disorders and their diagnosis, management and prevention. Psychiatrists are medical doctors who have qualified in psychiatry. They often combine a broad general caseload alongside an area of special expertise and research.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/psychological-therapies/differences-between-psychology,-psychiatry-and-psychotherapy/

A 2009 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that, “Overall, the data on barriers at jumping sites show that they are effective in reducing suicides from the site itself. In addition, no study has found an increase in suicides from other nearby structures after a barrier is built.”

In other words, they are medical doctors, you aren't.

Hilarious showing your desperation, they are very similar fields, one where Psychiatry specialized, showing again you know fuck all what you are talking about an how desperate you are on a debate, this is all you can come up with.Being as I have an understanding of psychology, it means I also have some understanding of Psychiatry who treat psychological disorders..

Thanks for provong how desperate you always are sassy.

You have no lap dogs on line to help you I see, ha ha

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Sassy wrote:

I suggest you read it again and work out what part of the funding would be available for mental health care. It only makes up a small part. So which way will you be voting tonight Quill?

Maybe this will help:

The seven million dollar contribution from Prop 63, a final piece of the funding puzzle made possible in this year’s state budget at the prompting of Senator Steinberg and Senator Mark Leno, enables the District to construct the barrier.

But the cost of the Bridge suicide prevention, as a whole, is $77-million. You see how you don't pay strict attention, sass?

Don't try and be condescending to me old man, I paid very strict attention. None of the other money would have been available for mental health issues.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:25 pm

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But the cost of the Bridge suicide prevention, as a whole, is $77-million. You see how you don't pay strict attention, sass?

Don't try and be condescending to me old man, I paid very strict attention. None of the other money would have been available for mental health issues.

As proven you know sweet FA, you just copy everything to claim you do know, funny that!

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:27 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:What is psychology?

Psychology is the study of people: how they think, how they act, react and interact. Psychology is concerned with all aspects of behaviour and the thoughts, feelings and motivation underlying such behaviour.

Psychology is a discipline that is firstly concerned with the normal functioning of the mind and has explored areas such as learning, remembering and the normal psychological development of children. Psychology is one of the fastest growing university subjects and is becoming increasingly available in schools and colleges.

Psychologists deal with the way the mind works and can specialise in a number of areas, such as mental health and educational and occupational psychology.

Psychologists are not usually medically qualified and only a small proportion of people studying psychology degrees will go on to work with patients.

What is psychiatry?

Psychiatry is the study of mental disorders and their diagnosis, management and prevention. Psychiatrists are medical doctors who have qualified in psychiatry. They often combine a broad general caseload alongside an area of special expertise and research.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/psychological-therapies/differences-between-psychology,-psychiatry-and-psychotherapy/

A 2009 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that, “Overall, the data on barriers at jumping sites show that they are effective in reducing suicides from the site itself. In addition, no study has found an increase in suicides from other nearby structures after a barrier is built.”

In other words, they are medical doctors, you aren't.

Hilarious showing your desperation, they are very similar fields, one where Psychiatry specialized, showing again you know fuck all what you are talking about an how desperate you are on a debate, this is all you can come up with.Being as I have an understanding of psychology, it means I also have some understanding of Psychiatry.

Thanks for provong how desperate you always are sassy.

You have no lap dogs on line to help you I see, ha ha

Oh Didge, you do like making yourself look a fool don't you. Do you think anyone will believe that you are a practicing psychologist with the mental health issues you show in your postings on forums. And you have no idea what understanding I have of mental health issues, or why. So go back to the Quill posse and send him some more pms.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:28 pm

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But the cost of the Bridge suicide prevention, as a whole, is $77-million. You see how you don't pay strict attention, sass?

Don't try and be condescending to me old man, I paid very strict attention. None of the other money would have been available for mental health issues.

And you have a good source for that claim?? Let's have it.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:28 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Don't try and be condescending to me old man, I paid very strict attention. None of the other money would have been available for mental health issues.

As proven you know sweet FA, you just copy everything to claim you do know, funny that!

I copy evidence, having looked at all the threads you have started in the last few days with long C&Ps about subjects that no-one is interested, I find that remark rather funny.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:29 pm

There's quite an interesting write-up on the topic in the New York Times. Excerpt:

"The plan calls for a $66 million stainless-steel net system 20 feet below the sidewalk. Over the years, much concern has been expressed about marring the bridge’s beauty; the barrier will be invisible from most angles. Many critics continue to assert that suicidal people will always find another way. Experts who have appeared before the board explained that the suicidal impulse is typically fleeting...

Eve R. Meyer, executive director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, said the popular argument was based on ignorance. “Scientific evidence says a barrier reduces suicides, because thoughts of suicide are transient,” she said. For years, she said, when she raised the issue of a barrier before the board, she was shunned.

Dr. Mel Blaustein, medical director of psychiatry at St. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco and an early proponent of a barrier, said, “Young people think the bridge is a perfect place to go.”

People see jumping off the bridge as an easy way to die, he said. “There is a misconception that it’s painless.”

Those who jump plummet 220 feet and typically suffer rib collapse on impact, lacerating lungs and other internal organs, said Ken Holmes, the retired Marin County coroner who saw so many bodies of bridge suicides that he became a major crusader for a barrier. He said they die of internal bleeding or drowning.

Dr. Blaustein said, “The most common myth to explode is that people will go elsewhere.”

In a 1978 study, “Where Are They Now?” Richard H. Seiden, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, looked at the question of whether someone prevented from committing suicide in one place would go somewhere else. He studied people who attempted suicide off the Golden Gate Bridge from 1937 to 1971 and found that more than 90 percent were still alive in 1978 or had died of natural causes."

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/us/suicides-mounting-golden-gate-looks-to-add-a-safety-net.html?_r=0

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Don't try and be condescending to me old man, I paid very strict attention. None of the other money would have been available for mental health issues.

And you have a good source for that claim?? Let's have it.

Try reading the Agenda, after all, it's been posted and you should have one at home.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:31 pm

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

Hilarious showing your desperation, they are very similar fields, one where Psychiatry specialized, showing again you know fuck all what you are talking about an how desperate you are on a debate, this is all you can come up with.Being as I have an understanding of psychology, it means I also have some understanding of Psychiatry.

Thanks for provong how desperate you always are sassy.

You have no lap dogs on line to help you I see, ha ha

Oh Didge, you do like making yourself look a fool don't you. Do you think anyone will believe that you are a practicing psychologist with the mental health issues you show in your postings on forums. And you have no idea what understanding I have of mental health issues, or why. So go back to the Quill posse and send him some more pms.

Never claimed to be a practicing psychologist, but I have qualifications in psychology, which means I have an understanding, which clearly as seen you do not.
You know fuck all, you never can debate the points and just C&P all the time, again you cannot answer the many points I hace posted, because clearly there is not a Google guide to help you!

I am not part of any posse, I just respect Quill as having very good knowledge, he does not need to C&P everything like yyou do and as seen you still cannot refute my points, mainly because you cannot Google it!

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:32 pm

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

As proven you know sweet FA, you just copy everything to claim you do know, funny that!

I copy evidence, having looked at all the threads you have started in the last few days with long C&Ps about subjects that no-one is interested, I find that remark rather funny.

Yes you copy things but do not understand them as seen and proven with again you and others not able to refute my points, it proves you know very little

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:33 pm

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And you have a good source for that claim?? Let's have it.

Try reading the Agenda, after all, it's been posted and you should have one at home.

Proving the only agenda you had here was about Quill and not potential suicides!

by Sponsored content