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 Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:27 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

That does not mean it was this that created the downfall in suicide attempts, you see this is what is poor about people who place connections when other factors may well have played apart in the decrease in attempts, it may well have more to do with how a country is doing.
So again such methodology is flawed when it fails to take many other aspects into account and why such methodology is both dangerous an naive. It falsely associates something which may have no affect at all.
There will always be plenty of methods to choose from, thus the best method will always people helping those vunerable

OK: What factors were in play to explain the correlation between the 25% downturn in the number of total suicides in Britain and the switch from coal gas to a less lethal form of gas, when previously a third of all the suicides in Britain had killed themselves with the use of coal gas?

You are asking me what factors when you still assume it was a switch from coal gas?
Again how do you know this was the reason?
You are poorly assuming yet again, taking a view point because there has been a decrease you poorly associate this without looking at every factor.

What you need to do is show year on year to today to show trends for a start, that figure is poorly based off a set number of years thus being flawed.

Do you understand?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:29 pm

Sassy wrote:This post was made by Didge who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

There's only so much waffle and bollox anyone can take, and I'm not take Didge's any longer.

Copout alert.

More like you are as seen unable to counter points and you were exposed for being a poor shit stirrer by starting this thread!

Hey ho, another one that retreats when they have no answer.

Hilarious and yet also very pathetic

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:31 pm

Also where is this study on the claim to a reduction on gas Lovedust, or are you just going off a claim?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:32 pm

Didge wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

I agree with you sass, people may still visit those sluice spots, bit if they can't jump because of safety measures , then it will definitely deter some from going another route....and as daft as this might sound I think some people visit or actually take their own life at these suicide spots BECAUSE they feel some sort of comfort knowing others have taken their lives there, so it might make them feel ' less alone' when jumping ,if you know what I mean?

How will it though?
If now this place is not possible to use, then this place will not even be contemplated with someone on the verge of desperation, it will just be once where vulnerable people did once use, now instead a person attempting will plan other methods. At least there was once a chance to prevent this with human intervention with patrols, now that is lost, a person would seek easier roots to try, where now no patrol may stumble across them.
This only has two benefits, preventing accidents and those who experience the trauma, but will not have any success in deterring anyone who wishes to attempt suicide.

But it will deter anyone who wishes to attempt suicide there surely, And isn`t that the point .

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:33 pm

You said other factors may have been in play to explain the coincidence between coal gas becoming unavailable in British homes, and a 25% suicide rate drop in a country where a third of the suicided population had been killing themselves with coal gas. I'm therefore asking you which factors you think explain the drop.

by Stephenmarra Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:34 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:This post was made by Didge who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

There's only so much waffle and bollox anyone can take, and I'm not take Didge's any longer.

Copout alert.

More like you are as seen unable to counter points and you were exposed for being a poor shit stirrer by starting this thread!

Hey ho, another one that retreats when they have no answer.

Hilarious and yet also very pathetic

Oh dear !

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:36 pm

lovedust wrote:
You said other factors may have been in play to explain the coincidence between coal gas becoming unavailable in British homes, and a 25% suicide rate drop in a country where a third of the suicided population had been killing themselves with coal gas. I'm therefore asking you which factors you think explain the drop.

Er,,, what? Coal gas wtf eh!!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:37 pm

Stephenmarra wrote:
Didge wrote:

Copout alert.

More like you are as seen unable to counter points and you were exposed for being a poor shit stirrer by starting this thread!

Hey ho, another one that retreats when they have no answer.

Hilarious and yet also very pathetic

Oh dear !

Oh dear is right lol
God knows its not often I agree with Didge but he got what this thread was about quick enough.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:37 pm

lovedust wrote:
You said other factors may have been in play to explain the coincidence between coal gas becoming unavailable in British homes, and a 25% suicide rate drop in a country where a third of the suicided population had been killing themselves with coal gas. I'm therefore asking you which factors you think explain the drop.

yes many factors may well have played apart, thus we need to see the years involved and what areas we are talking about, hence why I need to see this report, and not a claim as that is all that is given from your link.
How can I even research and show what other factors may play the part in the decrease without seeing the report?
So you need to first of all back up this claim, which as yet you have not, then we need to then look at all possible factors.

Simple, best you get to it!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:38 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
lovedust wrote:
You said other factors may have been in play to explain the coincidence between coal gas becoming unavailable in British homes, and a 25% suicide rate drop in a country where a third of the suicided population had been killing themselves with coal gas. I'm therefore asking you which factors you think explain the drop.
Er,,, what? Coal gas wtf eh!!

Indeed, it is a claim from her link with no link to this study!

hence why I have asked for it, then at least we can see where and how they are making this claim from!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:41 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

How will it though?
If now this place is not possible to use, then this place will not even be contemplated with someone on the verge of desperation, it will just be once where vulnerable people did once use, now instead a person attempting will plan other methods. At least there was once a chance to prevent this with human intervention with patrols, now that is lost, a person would seek easier roots to try, where now no patrol may stumble across them.
This only has two benefits, preventing accidents and those who experience the trauma, but will not have any success in deterring anyone who wishes to attempt suicide.
But it will deter anyone who wishes to attempt suicide there surely, And isn`t that the point .

Not really, as seen it stops people using this place, as seen most suicides are not using this method Korban, and they base it will help prevent based off human previous prevention, where as seen human prevention will now not play a part there. Again this now will just not factor to someone contemplating suicide, what happens is the problem is just being pushed away from this area. Unless you take away all preventive measures, all this does is just move the problem else where

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:42 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
Er,,, what? Coal gas wtf eh!!

Indeed, it is a claim from her link with no link to this study!

hence why I have asked for it, then at least we can see where and how they are making this claim from!

color me intrigued

by Irn Bru Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:7-Hours later:

Well, they passed it as expected. I'm very happy. I hope this is not the end of the concern for mental healthcare. When I look around and see all the homeless in San Francisco, it seems that so much more could be done.

I'm glad for the most part that I have not been here, both yesterday and this afternoon. What a pathetic display. I don't want now to make things uncomfortable for Didge, Eds and Nems...but thank you--not for your views--those are always your own--but for speaking up and not cowing. Seeing sass actually threaten eds, and eds standing up, was incredible. And Didge…they do try to rasp you down, don’t they? And they gang up on you...you were great.

I saw this thread for what it is right off, from the legend. I decided to make a point of exposing this kind of tactic…primarily because it will happen again, perhaps to someone else who is not as comfortable at handling himself as am I. It is one of those threads that specifically targets hate at one individual, and constitutes a kind of bullying. But it's all undercover. It’s the kind of thing I would expect on Flap or Cun#s Corner, but not here. But, as just seen, we have some members who are quite adept at it.

At this point Sass and Irn have admitted that the thread was a ruse, so we need spend no more time on that topic. Irn, I do think once again you ought to consider resigning as a mod here. You're openly abusing your superior's website.

This thread has taken up 8-pages and it is loaded with falsehoods from tiny-tweak lies, to some real whoppers. Expect to hear disclaimers from me for months and months to come, as I have to straighten out the facts. When we encounter the matter, you can expect to hear me start: Oh, that's from the ruse thread. I haven't tried to correct things as we went along, because (1) I wasn't here for most of the time; and (2) there was simply too much bullshit to respond to in one day, or one post.

I must say that Irn, I am overwhelmed at how much, and how easily you engage in this stuff--the lies, the distortions, the twists to make yourself right, these cyber wars generally, and etc, etc, etc. Wow...I was under the misapprehension that you are a professional person.

As for sassy...I've been putting up with this stuff from her for 2 years. Sass is not the brightest bulb, and she often simply reveals herself by her own over-enthusiasm with the ruse, whatever it is. She’s inartful in these matters, and that is how I found out about her stalking and hacking. I take her as a kind of clown...I certainly don't take her seriously. I am big enough to stand over her and just shake my head.

I'll give you one tip that will show you where this thread went sassy-sideways: Someone point to a clear, unambiguous statement that I was ever against the GGBHTD barrier. I've always been for it and I'm delighted it passed. Y’all just made shit up and then believed it. Just because I draw out the issues and implications of the arguments--for the bridge, for mental healthcare, for state and federal finances--is no indication of how I would vote, if I had a vote.

G’nite.

No-one has admitted this thread was a ruse and it wasn’t because no-one could possibly have predicted or known that you wouldn’t read the link showing the source of the data which you described as cow.

It wasn’t cow and never was and when you realised your mistake you just got angry and abusive and went up like a roman candle blaming some sort of gang for setting up a sting on you. If you had read the content in the link you would never have responded in the way you did so stop trying to make out that you are a victim here.

I entered this debate in good faith and provided some detail on what was going to happen at the next meeting. No-one asked me to do that and no-one prompted me either. You could easily just have read that very link but you didn’t so stop bleating and stop blaming others for your mistake because no-one could have possibly made you do that.

This is just another chapter in your usual routine when someone posts a view that is not in line with what you say and challenges it and demonstrates that you may just be wrong. You just try to beat them down and make out that they are stupid and inferior to you and that’s what you did on here right from page number 1. And no-one ‘found out’ as you say, about your involvement with the GGBHTD – you gave that information out all by yourself in one of these moments where you were trying to do just as I have said. Well it’s not on and I’m not going to sit here and take this crap from you.

I ’m not complicit in any ruse and if you continue to describe me as a crony and part of a gang as you have been doing for all these past two years that you mention then I’ll respond to that as and when it happens. It really is sad that you come out with all this nonsense when you write so well and have such a wealth of knowledge and a grasp of history that I haven’t seen matched by anyone on here. Just use it more constructively, stop hectoring people and you will probably get on better with everyone. Perhaps that’s a message for us all to take on board.

And finally, you were questioning why this was of interest to someone in the UK. Well I would just add that this was a matter of national interest throughout the whole world and we don’t need a passport to offer up our opinion on it. This thread was started from a link from Sky News and the decision to proceed was on the BBC website within 30 minutes of the decision being publicly announced. So just be thankful that the motion was passed unanimously by the Board of Directors and that it will hopefully be of great benefit to the community and beyond and as a whole and move on. It was the correct decision and one that nearly everyone who has contributed on here has agreed with throughout this whole thread.

by Irn Bru Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:45 pm

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:47 pm

Come off it Irn many see it was a poor attempt to try and expose someone based off someone have a childish grudge.

Sassy was easily exposed by her own posts

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:49 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
But it will deter anyone who wishes to attempt suicide there surely, And isn`t that the point .

Not really, as seen it stops people using this place, as seen most suicides are not using this method Korban, and they base it will help prevent based off human previous prevention, where as seen human prevention will now not play a part there. Again this now will just not factor to someone contemplating suicide, what happens is the problem is just being pushed away from this area. Unless you take away all preventive measures, all this does is just move the problem else where

using this place,Yes that my point and if they know that they can't do it there they will have to decide on somewhere else and that gives them time to reconsider ,if someone is determined to kill themselves, they will find away regardless of what you do ,but it doesn1`t follow that you should provide opportunities for them to succeed, we will never know if any people thought half way down "OH FUCK WHAT HAVE I .........
but if it saves just one life and it probably will and many more mainly because people so depressed to take such a action rarely think it trough

Then its worth it

by Irn Bru Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:51 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

How will it though?
If now this place is not possible to use, then this place will not even be contemplated with someone on the verge of desperation, it will just be once where vulnerable people did once use, now instead a person attempting will plan other methods. At least there was once a chance to prevent this with human intervention with patrols, now that is lost, a person would seek easier roots to try, where now no patrol may stumble across them.
This only has two benefits, preventing accidents and those who experience the trauma, but will not have any success in deterring anyone who wishes to attempt suicide.
But it will deter anyone who wishes to attempt suicide there surely, And isn`t that the point .

Not really, as seen it stops people using this place, as seen most suicides are not using this method Korban, and they base it will help prevent based off human previous prevention, where as seen human prevention will now not play a part there. Again this now will just not factor to someone contemplating suicide, what happens is the problem is just being pushed away from this area. Unless you take away all preventive measures, all this does is just move the problem else where

The evidence presented so far by medical experts suggests otherwise. I've asked you several times to show me the experts that you claim otherwise and dispute this and I'm still waiting for it. Have you got them yet?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:54 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Not really, as seen it stops people using this place, as seen most suicides are not using this method Korban, and they base it will help prevent based off human previous prevention, where as seen human prevention will now not play a part there. Again this now will just not factor to someone contemplating suicide, what happens is the problem is just being pushed away from this area. Unless you take away all preventive measures, all this does is just move the problem else where
using this place,Yes that my point and if they know that they can't do it there they will have to decide on somewhere else and that gives them time to reconsider ,if someone is determined to kill themselves, they will find away regardless of what you do ,but it doesn1`t follow that you should provide opportunities for them to succeed, we will never know if any people thought half way down "OH FUCK WHAT HAVE I .........
but if it saves just one life and it probably will and many more mainly because people so depressed to take such a action rarely think it trough

Then its worth it

That is a flawed methodology as seen, because this place would not even be contemplated with now nets, so why would they take time to reconsider, when this would not even come into the equation? You are going off the assumption people would want to choose this as first choice, when a person looking to end their life will look to plan out a method, of which jumping is one of the least methods. Guns make up over 50%.
You are assuming that if in the future people are even going to consider using the bridge, when why would they, their minds would be set on somewhere else to jump if this is what they have chosen to do.
Again all this does is prevent accidents, help those not suffer traumas, and just move the problem else where.
So it will only save lives from accidents,

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:54 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Not really, as seen it stops people using this place, as seen most suicides are not using this method Korban, and they base it will help prevent based off human previous prevention, where as seen human prevention will now not play a part there. Again this now will just not factor to someone contemplating suicide, what happens is the problem is just being pushed away from this area. Unless you take away all preventive measures, all this does is just move the problem else where

The evidence presented so far by medical experts suggests otherwise. I've asked you several times to show me the experts that you claim otherwise and dispute this and I'm still waiting for it. Have you got them yet?

All I can say Irn, is that I'm very glad Eddie completely missed Quill trying to make out I had attacked her and found it funny when I pointed it out. Just another nasty move on his part.

I have searched the net and cannot find one study that says suicide rates increase in other places if you stop them happening in a frequently used one. Not one study.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:56 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Not really, as seen it stops people using this place, as seen most suicides are not using this method Korban, and they base it will help prevent based off human previous prevention, where as seen human prevention will now not play a part there. Again this now will just not factor to someone contemplating suicide, what happens is the problem is just being pushed away from this area. Unless you take away all preventive measures, all this does is just move the problem else where

The evidence presented so far by medical experts suggests otherwise. I've asked you several times to show me the experts that you claim otherwise and dispute this and I'm still waiting for it. Have you got them yet?

Really, so you keep saying, that is not a counter, try again!
You want to have a debate between experts or what I know and you know?
Sorry that is daft, because most will go with human help, restricting methods is never enough.

Try again

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:57 pm

Sassy wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

The evidence presented so far by medical experts suggests otherwise. I've asked you several times to show me the experts that you claim otherwise and dispute this and I'm still waiting for it. Have you got them yet?

All I can say Irn, is that I'm very glad Eddie completely missed Quill trying to make out I had attacked her and found it funny when I pointed it out. Just another nasty move on his part.

I have searched the net and cannot find one study that says suicide rates increase in other places if you stop them happening in a frequently used one. Not one study.

More proof this you having some lame childish grudge and the reason you started this thread

by Irn Bru Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:58 pm

Sassy wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Not really, as seen it stops people using this place, as seen most suicides are not using this method Korban, and they base it will help prevent based off human previous prevention, where as seen human prevention will now not play a part there. Again this now will just not factor to someone contemplating suicide, what happens is the problem is just being pushed away from this area. Unless you take away all preventive measures, all this does is just move the problem else where

The evidence presented so far by medical experts suggests otherwise. I've asked you several times to show me the experts that you claim otherwise and dispute this and I'm still waiting for it. Have you got them yet?

All I can say Irn, is that I'm very glad Eddie completely missed Quill trying to make out I had attacked her and found it funny when I pointed it out. Just another nasty move on his part.

I have searched the net and cannot find one study that says suicide rates increase in other places if you stop them happening in a frequently used one. Not one study.

Didge claims there are many. I've asked him to show them to me - several times.

I'm off to watch the second half of the football so hopefully he'll have them so that I can read them later.

Catch you later.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:00 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Sassy wrote:

All I can say Irn, is that I'm very glad Eddie completely missed Quill trying to make out I had attacked her and found it funny when I pointed it out. Just another nasty move on his part.

I have searched the net and cannot find one study that says suicide rates increase in other places if you stop them happening in a frequently used one. Not one study.

Didge claims there are many. I've asked him to show them to me - several times.

I'm off to watch the second half of the football so hopefully he'll have them so that I can read them later.

Catch you later.

Oh you run away again, ha ha

I have posted 4 links for you as you well know, which you said you would read which I guess you did not

Oh well, catch you later

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:00 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
using this place,Yes that my point and if they know that they can't do it there they will have to decide on somewhere else and that gives them time to reconsider ,if someone is determined to kill themselves, they will find away regardless of what you do ,but it doesn1`t follow that you should provide opportunities for them to succeed, we will never know if any people thought half way down "OH FUCK WHAT HAVE I .........
but if it saves just one life and it probably will and many more mainly because people so depressed to take such a action rarely think it trough

Then its worth it

That is a flawed methodology as seen, because this place would not even be contemplated with now nets, so why would they take time to reconsider, when this would not even come into the equation? You are going off the assumption people would want to choose this as first choice, when a person looking to end their life will look to plan out a method, of which jumping is one of the least methods. Guns make up over 50%.
You are assuming that if in the future people are even going to consider using the bridge, when why would they, their minds would be set on somewhere else to jump if this is what they have chosen to do.
Again all this does is prevent accidents, help those not suffer traumas, and just move the problem else where.
So it will only save lives from accidents,

So you would agree some suicides ,how much is a life worth to you then ?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:02 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is a flawed methodology as seen, because this place would not even be contemplated with now nets, so why would they take time to reconsider, when this would not even come into the equation? You are going off the assumption people would want to choose this as first choice, when a person looking to end their life will look to plan out a method, of which jumping is one of the least methods. Guns make up over 50%.
You are assuming that if in the future people are even going to consider using the bridge, when why would they, their minds would be set on somewhere else to jump if this is what they have chosen to do.
Again all this does is prevent accidents, help those not suffer traumas, and just move the problem else where.
So it will only save lives from accidents,
So you would agree some suicides ,how much is a life worth to you then ?

Never agreed anything in regards to people who are potential suiciders.
Life is always important, tad weird question, the point I have always made is best prevention comes from people that can assist and help, thus human help, people that those who are vulnerable can have help for them

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:04 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is a flawed methodology as seen, because this place would not even be contemplated with now nets, so why would they take time to reconsider, when this would not even come into the equation? You are going off the assumption people would want to choose this as first choice, when a person looking to end their life will look to plan out a method, of which jumping is one of the least methods. Guns make up over 50%.
You are assuming that if in the future people are even going to consider using the bridge, when why would they, their minds would be set on somewhere else to jump if this is what they have chosen to do.
Again all this does is prevent accidents, help those not suffer traumas, and just move the problem else where.
So it will only save lives from accidents,
So you would agree some suicides ,how much is a life worth to you then ?

It's not just the suicides that are affected. The bridge patrol men who try and talk people down and fail are traumatised and blame themselves for not succeeded, workers have been injured and there have been car crashes because of drivers being distracted.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:05 pm

Sassy wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
So you would agree some suicides ,how much is a life worth to you then ?

It's not just the suicides that are affected. The bridge patrol men who try and talk people down and fail are traumatised and blame themselves for not succeeded, workers have been injured and there have been car crashes because of drivers being distracted.

All very good reasons for it to be, there seems to me

To be honest all bridges and high structures should be fitted with some sort of safety equipment ...why not ?

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:06 pm

Sassy wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
So you would agree some suicides ,how much is a life worth to you then ?

It's not just the suicides that are affected. The bridge patrol men who try and talk people down and fail are traumatised and blame themselves for not succeeded, workers have been injured and there have been car crashes because of drivers being distracted.

But they are the ones that do the good work, they are the ones that help prevent suicides from happening, which is where the flawed methodology is made from that nets will be able to do the same as they did.

All these nets do is deter an not stop attempts with other methods, they do stop accidents which is good an they stop such traumas, but do they help decrease suicide attempts, very doubtful!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:10 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

It's not just the suicides that are affected. The bridge patrol men who try and talk people down and fail are traumatised and blame themselves for not succeeded, workers have been injured and there have been car crashes because of drivers being distracted.

But they are the ones that do the good work, they are the ones that help prevent suicides from happening, which is where the flawed methodology is made from that nets will be able to do the same as they did.

All these nets do is deter an not stop attempts with other methods, they do stop accidents which is good an they stop such traumas, but do they help decrease suicide attempts, very doubtful!

Er,,,, yes that's the point why is that a problem seems sensible

and do they help decrease suicide attempts, very doubtful ...........you can doubt many things but without evidence its irrelevant

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:13 pm

here are several reasons why the safety net on the Golden Gate Bridge will stop the jumping there and save lives. These are related both to the design of the net, the nature of suicide at the Bridge, and the nature of suicide in general.

Critics of the net—and most any other proposal—raise a number of objections. At the core of this criticism is a belief that once someone decides to commit suicide, they cannot be stopped. Surely, if that were the case, someone who attempts suicide once and survives would simply try again. The truth is, such persons are at high risk for suicide and some die in follow-up attempts. Yet nationally, 90 percent of all people who survive a first suicide attempt do not subsequently die by suicide.

Given time and treatment, a person in a suicidal state can get past the impulse to die, and get on with life. And that’s exactly what has happened with people who survived an attempt at the Gate. Cornelia Van Ireland, the first to jump from the Bridge and survive (in 1940), went on to live out her life. Ken Baldwin jumped in the early ‘80’s and has had a long career as a schoolteacher since. Kevin Hines, whose story is detailed here, recovered from his injuries, got married and is an active mental health advocate. Like the national data, about 90 percent of people who survive a jump from the Golden Gate Bridge do not later die by suicide. And a study of people stopped during a Bridge suicide attempt found that 94 percent were still alive—for an average of 26 years—or had died of natural causes.

People in a suicidal state can get past it, get the help they need and survive. And the chance of that survival has a great deal to do with ease of access to lethal means. Sometimes the simplest changes—like packaging drugs in single dose containers rather than bulk packs—can decrease suicides. Proper use of gun-locks has reduced suicides in gun-owning households. Locking up poisonous pesticides cuts down suicides. The list goes on.

The bridge experience, as reported in Maine, Washington D.C., Canada, the U.K., Australia and elsewhere is the same. Restrict easy access and lives are saved. In none of these examples is there any evidence of people simply using another bridge once a known suicide bridge has a proper railing or net. In the D.C. example, the next nearest bridge is only blocks away.

The bottom line is really pretty simple—every example of restricting easy access to lethal means is associated with saving lives.

This leaves only questions about the Golden Gate Bridge proposal itself—will the net actually work? Certainly, the international experience tells us yes. The Swiss system, on which the Golden Gate Bridge proposal is based, has stopped suicide jumps so effectively that no one has even tried the system. The Golden Gate Bridge net— like the system in Bern—will hang some 20 feet below the pedestrian deck. A jumper would fall two stories before hitting the net, likely causing some serious injury. And the natural sag of the net—with an injured individual in it— will make climbing out very difficult. In addition, the plan includes a rescue service to pull any injured individual from the net. The available evidence tells us the net will work.

http://www.bridgerail.org/the-issue-a-the-campaign/why-the-net-will-work

All without some poor bastard trying to save someone, failing, and blaming himself for the rest of his life.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:13 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

But they are the ones that do the good work, they are the ones that help prevent suicides from happening, which is where the flawed methodology is made from that nets will be able to do the same as they did.

All these nets do is deter an not stop attempts with other methods, they do stop accidents which is good an they stop such traumas, but do they help decrease suicide attempts, very doubtful!
Er,,,, yes that's the point why is that a problem seems sensible

and do they help decrease suicide attempts, very doubtful ...........you can doubt many things but without evidence its irrelevant

Wow, yes no evidence points to the fact they do decrease suicide attempts the point you miss.
You get me wrong it is good the nets will be there to stop accidents, they will not help decrease suicide attempts, base off many of the points given, again jumping accounts for around 2-5%.
So my points are very relevant, let me know when you have something relevant!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:15 pm

Blimey sassy uses again where human prevention has helped save people to poorly then claim nets will do the same job, showing she does not understand much about the problems with dealing with suicides, all she can do is C&P and not understand anything being discussed

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:17 pm

Didge wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

I agree with you sass, people may still visit those sluice spots, bit if they can't jump because of safety measures , then it will definitely deter some from going another route....and as daft as this might sound I think some people visit or actually take their own life at these suicide spots BECAUSE they feel some sort of comfort knowing others have taken their lives there, so it might make them feel ' less alone' when jumping ,if you know what I mean?

How will it though?
If now this place is not possible to use, then this place will not even be contemplated with someone on the verge of desperation, it will just be once where vulnerable people did once use, now instead a person attempting will plan other methods. At least there was once a chance to prevent this with human intervention with patrols, now that is lost, a person would seek easier roots to try, where now no patrol may stumble across them.
This only has two benefits, preventing accidents and those who experience the trauma, but will not have any success in deterring anyone who wishes to attempt suicide.

Didge,the reason I believe this will save lives is because people do things differently, think differently and have different preferences and fears...

If we were all exactly the same then that would be different.

That is why I believe it will save at least so many lives, but I also believe that yes,,,some people will choose other methods and actually follow through With taking their own lives...some lives saved is a lot better than none.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:17 pm

The bridge experience, as reported in Maine, Washington D.C., Canada, the U.K., Australia and elsewhere is the same. Restrict easy access and lives are saved. In none of these examples is there any evidence of people simply using another bridge once a known suicide bridge has a proper railing or net. In the D.C. example, the next nearest bridge is only blocks away.

These are bridges where nets are employed and have worked as with the barriers on the Clifton bridge that has reduced suicide by a huge amount, even though there are places on the cliffs they could jump from instead.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:19 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Didge wrote:

How will it though?
If now this place is not possible to use, then this place will not even be contemplated with someone on the verge of desperation, it will just be once where vulnerable people did once use, now instead a person attempting will plan other methods. At least there was once a chance to prevent this with human intervention with patrols, now that is lost, a person would seek easier roots to try, where now no patrol may stumble across them.
This only has two benefits, preventing accidents and those who experience the trauma, but will not have any success in deterring anyone who wishes to attempt suicide.

Didge,the reason I believe this will save lives is because people do things differently, think differently and have different preferences and fears...

If we were all exactly the same then that would be different.

That is why I believe it will save at least so many lives, but I also believe that yes,,,some people will choose other methods and actually follow through With taking their own lives...some lives saved is a lot better than none.

How will they when again this method is only used by a small percentage?

that shows your views and methodology is flawed.

What many people are poorly claiming is now they understand the mindset of someone who is at the edge of abyss, they don't.
It will only save lives from accidents, there is no way to claim it will affect anyone from contemplating ending their lives

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:20 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Indeed, it is a claim from her link with no link to this study!

hence why I have asked for it, then at least we can see where and how they are making this claim from!
color me intrigued

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:22 pm

lovedust wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
color me intrigued

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945

Did you read it?

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Thanks for proving my point

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:23 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
Er,,,, yes that's the point why is that a problem seems sensible

and do they help decrease suicide attempts, very doubtful ...........you can doubt many things but without evidence its irrelevant

Wow, yes no evidence points to the fact they do decrease suicide attempts the point you miss.
You get me wrong it is good the nets will be there to stop accidents, they will not help decrease suicide attempts, base off many of the points given, again jumping accounts for around 2-5%.
So my points are very relevant, let me know when you have something relevant!

2-5%. People, right?

So I ask again how much worth do you put on a life, feel free to round up or down ...your choice

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:24 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Wow, yes no evidence points to the fact they do decrease suicide attempts the point you miss.
You get me wrong it is good the nets will be there to stop accidents, they will not help decrease suicide attempts, base off many of the points given, again jumping accounts for around 2-5%.
So my points are very relevant, let me know when you have something relevant!
2-5%. People, right?

So I ask again how much worth do you put on a life, feel free to round up or down ...your choice

Absurd question again asking my personal views on life which i already answered, saying life is the most important thing!

Try again!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:25 pm

lovedust wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
color me intrigued

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945

I know of it Lovey. People used to actually put a pillow on the base of the oven, turn on the gas, lay with their head on the pillow and basically go to sleep and die. It was seen as a very easy, comparatively 'nice' way to die. Once they changed the gas, and you would no longer die from it, people who wanted to kill themselves had to think of ways that might involved pain, or in the case of drugs, waking up brain damaged, or by jumping out of windows, ending up in a wheelchair. It became a much harder decision to make and the suicide rate dropped.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:26 pm

Sassy wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945

I know of it Lovey. People used to actually put a pillow on the base of the oven, turn on the gas, lay with their head on the pillow and basically go to sleep and die. It was seen as a very easy, comparatively 'nice' way to die. Once they changed the gas, and you would no longer die from it, people who wanted to kill themselves had to think of ways that might involved pain, or in the case of drugs, waking up brain damaged, or by jumping out of windows, ending up in a wheelchair. It became a much harder decision to make and the suicide rate dropped.

Sadly, lovedust proved my point, it showed vast increases in other methods:

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:27 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945

Did you read it?

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Thanks for proving my point

Why are you shouting with big fonts ? No I had not seen it that's why I am intrigued ?
Appearing a bit hostile there ....big breath in .....and out

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:28 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Did you read it?

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Thanks for proving my point
Why are you shouting with big fonts ? No I had not seen it that's why I am intrigued ?
Appearing a bit hostile there ....big breath in .....and out

Digression alert, it is how it copies from the link, not me alterting anything!
If you type after such a link, all newt words will be of the same factors

So I suggest you get over your huge paranoia and stop deflecting!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:30 pm

Didge,,,I'm baffled as to why you don't think this will serve some good purpose, as in preventing SOME suicides...

Not everyone will seek or carry out another method, some will no doubt...but some will not.

Everybody thinks differently Didge and everyone has a different level of fear from each other , some may be to afraid to jump off a bridge , but will go ahead and and put a hose on their exhaust ...and vice versa...

That is the best take I can give you ...and without sounding like a know it -all , I don't think I'm that wide of the mark.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:32 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Please find: THE COAL GAS STORY: UNITED KINGDOM SUICIDE RATES, 1960 - 1971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945

Did you read it?

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Thanks for proving my point

No Didge: overall suicide rates declined by a quarter.

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:33 pm

Joy Division wrote:Didge,,,I'm baffled as to why you don't think this will serve some good purpose, as in preventing SOME suicides...

Not everyone will seek or carry out another method, some will no doubt...but some will not.

Everybody thinks differently Didge and everyone has a different level of fear from each other , some may be to afraid to jump off a bridge , but will go ahead and and put a hose on their exhaust ...and vice versa...

That is the best take I can give you ...and without sounding like a know it -all , I don't think I'm that wide of the mark.

You must be in need of going to specsavers, as stated I said this will help prevent accidents and help those who suffer seeing traumas.

Sorry Joy you are just repeating yourself and as seen Lovedust was kind enough to search for what she thought was evidence backing her claim, which actually backed my view, as seen suicide attempts increased in other methods as sen above, proving my point right that all this does is push the problem else where

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:33 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
Why are you shouting with big fonts ? No I had not seen it that's why I am intrigued ?
Appearing a bit hostile there ....big breath in .....and out

Digression alert, it is how it copies from the link, not me alterting anything!
If you type after such a link, all newt words will be of the same factors

So I suggest you get over your huge paranoia and stop deflecting!

paranoia .......Me I only commented on the way your post came across
it`s hardly my fault your post gave the wrong impression, perhaps if you preview of you post before clicking send ,you could avoid further misunderstands

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:34 pm

What Started It

Although I've lived in the San Francisco Bay Area my entire life, until 1996 I rarely gave any thought to suicides from the Golden Gate Bridge or the need for a suicide barrier there. No one I knew had jumped from the bridge. Never in my infrequent walks across the bridge had I seen anyone jump or even look as if he or she was thinking of jumping.

In 1996, after I became executive director of a 24-hour crisis center in the Bay Area, everything changed. I learned facts about the bridge that astonished me, mainly because I felt I should have known them already. For instance, I learned that the original design included a higher railing specifically to protect against suicides. In a last-minute decision, it was scrapped to enhance the view. Also, at one time the bridge had a safety net. It was installed during construction and saved the lives of 19 workers who fell into it accidentally. When the bridge was completed, the net was removed.

Another thing I learned was that one section of the bridge has had a barrier for years. It’s chain-link, eight feet high and 350 feet long. It’s not pretty and it's not there to prevent suicides; its function is to keep people from dumping garbage onto Fort Point. Similarly, all of the surveillance equipment on the bridge isn’t intended to prevent suicides. Rather, it’s for security purposes since the Golden Gate Bridge is considered to be a potential target for terrorists.

I also learned facts about the people who jump that surprised me. For instance, the vast majority live nearby. Despite the myth that the bridge attracts troubled and depressed souls from around the world, its lure is largely local. Also, the average age of Golden Gate Bridge jumpers is considerably younger than that of other suicide victims. More than 10 percent are teens. Perhaps most disturbing of all, because of the short railing, three young children have been thrown over the side by parents who jumped after them.

The most important fact I learned was that the Golden Gate Bridge is the top suicide site on earth and the only international landmark without a suicide barrier. When I mentioned this to friends and colleagues, they were stunned. That’s why I wrote The Final Leap. It’s intended to educate readers about Golden Gate Bridge suicides with the hope that more people will realize that this tragedy can’t continue, it has to end. And it can, with the erection of a suicide deterrent. A taller railing or a well-designed net will save lives. If you don’t believe it, if you think suicidal people who are stopped from jumping will kill themselves another way, then I encourage you to read this book—and learn more facts.

http://www.thefinalleap.com/what-started-it.html

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:35 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Did you read it?

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Thanks for proving my point

No Didge: overall suicide rates declined by a quarter.

No lovedust, as seen you are very wrong!
It decreased 25% for those using this method, not overall
Seriously, my job is around risk analysis these days, moved on from planning which means I understand risks very well, better than most!

by Guest Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:36 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

I know of it Lovey. People used to actually put a pillow on the base of the oven, turn on the gas, lay with their head on the pillow and basically go to sleep and die. It was seen as a very easy, comparatively 'nice' way to die. Once they changed the gas, and you would no longer die from it, people who wanted to kill themselves had to think of ways that might involved pain, or in the case of drugs, waking up brain damaged, or by jumping out of windows, ending up in a wheelchair. It became a much harder decision to make and the suicide rate dropped.

Sadly, lovedust proved my point, it showed vast increases in other methods:

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes.

Statistics and numbers on certain methods of suicides shift Didge, , they never stay stagnant.

by Sponsored content