http://news.yahoo.com/golden-gate-br...031118820.html
Because jumping off the bridge is the only way to kill yourself. Another example of society demanding "SOMETHING BE DONE."
So stupid
http://news.yahoo.com/golden-gate-br...031118820.html
Because jumping off the bridge is the only way to kill yourself. Another example of society demanding "SOMETHING BE DONE."
1300 suicides? Yeah, some action is probably called for. 's close to 20 deaths a year. If there were that many fatalities from vehicular accidents on the bridge a year, you can be damned sure money would be getting spent on ways to bring the total down.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The point, Lewk, is that sucide by bridge-jumping is often a spur of the moment decision. There have been some people who survived such jumps and they all state that they rued their decision to jump immediately after it was executed.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200.../031013fa_factAs he crossed the chord in flight, Baldwin recalls, “I instantly realized that everything in my life that I’d thought was unfixable was totally fixable—except for having just jumped.”
So, by preventing them from jumping you may very well prevent them from suiciding at all.
Yet, in October, construction will be completed on a fifty-four-inch-high steel barrier between the walkway and the adjacent traffic lanes which is meant to prevent bicyclists from veering into traffic. No cyclist has ever been killed; nonetheless, the bridge’s chief engineer, Denis Mulligan, says that the five-million-dollar barrier was necessary: “It’s a public-safety issue.”
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
why feed the troll? its been well established that lewk doesn't understand how the mind works, especially when its not working correctly, and he has shown no willingness to fix that ignorance.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Good thing they jumped and lived and didn't try one of the more full proof ways of killing themselves then right?
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Uh. . . there are probably more people whose lives have been saved after attempting suicide by gun or knife than by falling 220 feet.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I love the part where the jumper states he realized everything in his life was fixable... except having just jumped. That's the problem with this form of suicide, you get time to think about how stupid you are.
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
Dodgy comparison, suicides are deliberate actions and frequently premeditated. Vehicular fatalities are almost always accidental (besides suicides). A jumper at the point of jumping wants to die (rightly or wrongly), car fatalities don't.
Suicide is generally selfish, but some ways to go are more selfish than others. Jumping from other locations are common: jumping in front of a train which can leave train drivers mentally scarred and commuters stuck inside a train for long delays, jumping onto a roadway from a bridge which can again leave road drivers mentally scarred and again hundreds or thousands of commuters delayed. Hanging, shooting or cutting themselves leaving partners, children or other loved ones the shocking discovery of their potentially mutilated corpse.
As far as suicides go jumping into a river is one of the least damaging and least traumatic for loved ones and or total strangers. There are ways to try and help, providing the number for the Samaritans and similar organisations, but displacing such jumpers onto the roads or train tracks is not a positive step. Suicide is tragic but people will choose to do it, without giving a legal route if I was to ever want to do it then into a river is probably the way I'd want to go.
PS 20 a year in a city the size of San Francisco doesn't sound that much to me. There are 100 suicides per year in San Francisco, do you think the other 80 chose better ways to go?
this isn't some deserted bridge in the middle of no where. Total strangers have and will continue to watch these poor people jump to their death. Just about every private way to off yourself is less traumatic for "total strangers"
My area has the deadliest suicide bridge outside of california, suicides are a big deal to everyone.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Watching them jump is more traumatic than hitting them with your car/train and personally and directly killing them yourself? Seeing them jump off a bridge is more traumatic than seeing them land and go splat on the pavement from a building? Just about every public way to off yourself is more traumatic for "total strangers"
Of course private ways are more traumatic for loved ones which is why the quote was loved ones and or total strangers.
Do you have any idea how many train drivers have "caused" the death of jumpers? Any idea how many drivers have hit or ran over a jumper? Suicide is never pleasant but water doing the dirty work is kinder than strangers being co-opted against their will into killing someone.
This isn't jumping into a river, this is jumping from one of the most active bridges in the western US, one that is also a landmark location with a lot of pedestrian traffic and sight-seers. Do you think if there were 20 jumps a year from the Grand Canyon Skywalk that nothing would/should be done? Because the Golden Gate is a busier location than that.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And where do you think its better to have those suicides? In London there's 50-150 suicides per year (at least 1 ever week) on the Underground, causing PTSD to so many drivers and other rail employees and passengers. Its not as many in San Francisco but still a lot of San Francisco rail employees end up traumatised with "PTSD ... anxiety, insomnia and depression" after rail suicides: www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/us/engineers-face-horrible-memories-from-deaths-on-the-tracks.html?_r=0 - would you prefer if Golden Gate jumpers were transferred onto the tracks instead?
Not to mention that the Eiffel Tower and other such landmarks have been modified to prevent jumpers (granted, they'd be a bit more problematic for the crowds below, but still.)
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Last I checked Eiffel Tower isn't over water so doesn't apply with anything I said.
Citation needed. Seriously, where do you get this notion from when suicide research shows the opposite trend? Prevent suicides at landmark sites and you reduce the overall rate of sucides!
Take this study, for example:
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/12/4550/pdf
Restricting access to common means of suicide, such as firearms, toxic gas, pesticides and other, has been shown to be effective in reducing rates of death in suicide.[...]
Results: A number of factors may influence an individual’s decision regarding method in a suicide act, but there is substantial support that easy access influences the choice of method. In many countries, restrictions of
access to common means of suicide has lead to lower overall suicide rates, particularly regarding suicide by firearms in USA, detoxification of domestic and motor vehicle gas in England and other countries, toxic pesticides in rural areas, barriers at jumping sites and hanging, by introducing “safe rooms” in prisons and hospitals.
Moreover, decline in prescription of barbiturates and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), as well as limitation of drugs pack size for paracetamol and salicylate has reduced suicides by overdose, while increased prescription of SSRIs seems to have lowered suicidal rates.
Conclusions:
Restriction to means of suicide may be particularly effective in contexts where the method is popular, highly lethal, widely available, and/or not easily substituted by other similar methods. However, since there is some risk of means substitution, restriction of access should be implemented in conjunction with other suicide prevention strategies.
Yes, Rand, there's some risk of substitution. But overall rates are down.
Oh, I guess you're making the rules now and decide what applies and what not? Last time I checked, the Eiffel Tower is a landmark and did have a serious problem with jumpers...
Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 07-01-2014 at 08:18 PM.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
From your own quotation let alone your own link "... not easily substituted by other similar methods". Given that nearly as many die in San Francisco from jumping onto train tracks as from jumping off the bridge then yes there is a very easy substitution available.
And that makes the innocents suffering from PTSD, anxiety, depression and other serious mental illnesses due to killing someone against their own will what? Irrelevant?Yes, Rand, there's some risk of substitution. But overall rates are down.
It is a tragedy when people end their own lives needlessly. However my priority is the people who haven't woken up and chosen to end someone else's life then having to live with those consequences forever than those who've chosen to end their own. If the substitution didn't involve adding serious suffering and crippling mental illnesses to purely innocent bystanders then a marginal decrease in overall rates would be a success.
Given what I said was related to suicide on water versus suicide by other means and absolutely nothing to do with landmarks then yes I think I'm qualified to determine whether an alternative landmark not on water applies to "anything I said".Oh, I guess you're making the rules now and decide what applies and what not? Last time I checked, the Eiffel Tower is a landmark and did have a serious problem with jumpers...
EDIT: What you didn't quote was this:From your own link, no overall reduction in the local suicide rate. So serious evidence that those San Francisco suicides will be displaced not prevented.On the other hand, a recent study aimed to determine whether rates of suicide changed in Toronto after a barrier was erected on the Bloor Street Viaduct, reported that although the barrier prevented suicides at the viaduct, the overall rate of suicide by jumping in Toronto remained unchanged [52]. Moreover, Glasgow [53], by an extensive analysis across 3,116 US counties or county equivalents found that while exposure to local landmark bridges was associated with an increased number of suicides by jumping, no positive relationship between these bridges and the overall number of suicides was detected. Therefore, barriers at jumping sites may prevent suicides to some extent, especially when the site is a site frequently used for suicidal purposes and therefore symbolically characterized, or when they make intervention possible [48]. However, overall studies seem to demonstrate that barriers lead to a reduction in the number of suicides by jumping at the site where they are installed, but not to the overall local suicide rate [53].
Last edited by RandBlade; 07-01-2014 at 09:22 PM.
Rand, please don't do that cherrypicking when the summary of the study disagrees with you. Please follow your own advice and read everything, even if it doesn't fit your agenda. Because that's what you're doing: Cherrypicking. You're arguing with an anecdote and I'm arguing with statistics.
This is the summary:
But you may now continue to disregard annying stuff. I'm out. Because this was just one example. There's more, like the "Where are they now?" study which deals exclusively with the Golden Gate Bridge. I also note that you failed to bring anything to the table.In many countries, restrictions of access to common means of suicide has lead to lower overall suicide rates,
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The overall summary referring to restricting access to multiple means of suicide including Toxic Domestic Gas, Car Exhausts, Firearms, Pesticides, Barbituates, Paracetamol, Antidepressants, Barriers at Jump Sites, preventing hanging in institutional settings, and the way its reported in the media in conjuction with other suicide prevention strategies. Whether you like it or not the conclusion on the category of barriers at jump sites is that there is "[no reduction] in the local suicide rate". That is the end of the category on jump sites - ignore it if you like but what it summarises is there in plain print.
The evidence is that those suicides will be displaced not prevented making my argument that the alternatives are far more horrific perfectly relevant and should not be flippantly dismissed.
Dude, again, you're cherrypicking. Read the summary. I dare say that if the summary of a study disagrees with your opinion of what the study says then I dare say that you have a bit of a problem. I already told you that this is not the only study. But if you're unable to bring anything of your own, then I don't really care about your misgivings, rantings or otherwise unfounded notions of grandeur.
And, that's my final word.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
ignoring the fact that you're taking a serious condition that someone else is suffering from, and some how managing to once again create an argument concerning whats best for yourself...
don't you guys have some of the most strict front impact regulations in the world? to stop pedestrians from dying when getting hit by cars? Why is that safety measure ok, but nets not?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The summary doesn't disagree with what I said. What I said is both the summary of the relevant section and a quote from the final summary. You are the one cherrypicking and ignoring the fact the study says not once but repeatedly about substitution.
I'm a train driver? News to me. My concern for those who have their lives ruined by PTSD for something they had no control over has nothing to do with what is best for myself.
Again most motorvehicular fatalities are accidents, suicides are not accidents. Trying to prevent suicides is a noble aim, doing so by inflicting suffering on others is not. How many innocents are you ok with suffering when there is plenty of evidence that it will not reduce overall suicide rates.don't you guys have some of the most strict front impact regulations in the world? to stop pedestrians from dying when getting hit by cars? Why is that safety measure ok, but nets not?
If deaths by bridge jumping is reduced but overall deaths by jumping is not then where are the jumpers likely to go? Hint: where nearly as many already go.
So what? You say that like PTSD, anxiety, insomnia and depression are bad things. They're not bad things, they're just things. The drivers are just playing it up so that they can use these "diagnoses" as excuses to skive off at the taxpayers' expense.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Jesus Christ then restrict access to both bridges and trains. God, you people
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Is this seriously the level of comprehension and maturity you're bringing to this discussion?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Good idea. Why has nobody thought of that before? If making the tracks and alternative jump sites were being made safe in conjunction then it'd be a very good idea. You got a failsafe way to do so because I'm sure a number of cities around the world would pay a fortune for such a solution.
No the idea I was "some how managing to once again create an argument concerning whats best for yourself..." was your level of maturity. My concern was with train drivers and other such innocents co-opted into killing someone against their will and ending with serious mental illnesses including depression themselves.Is this seriously the level of comprehension and maturity you're bringing to this discussion?
You can't just gloss over the alternative substitutions like they don't exist, not unless you're just putting your head in the sand. Jumpers will almost certainly jump elsewhere as a comprehensive study of 3,116 US counties demonstrated and the present alternatives are worse.
What? Are you saying it's retarded to yammer on about how terrible PTSD and other mental health problems are and then in the next breath say something ridiculous about how suicide--frequently caused by eg. PTSD, depression and other mental health problems--is selfish and a "choice"? No wai
I think perhaps you need to apply some thinking to the studies you're citing.Good idea. Why has nobody thought of that before? If making the tracks and alternative jump sites were being made safe in conjunction then it'd be a very good idea. You got a failsafe way to do so because I'm sure a number of cities around the world would pay a fortune for such a solution.
Jumpers will almost certainly jump elsewhere as a comprehensive study of 3,116 US counties demonstrated and the present alternatives are worse.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I have said repeatedly in this thread that suicide is tragic and that there are ways to help. It IS a choice though, not necessarily the best choice but it is one. Displacing those tragedies into far bigger and worse tragedies is not a good step.
Unless you believe that causing immense suffering on others is worthwhile collateral damage? Which is it: There won't be an increase in collateral damage or there will be but so what?
You may also consider looking at the primary sources to find out what they actually said (although you should be able to infer that from the way their findings are presented in the article).
A number of recent studies have examined the effect of installing physical barriers or otherwise
restricting access to public sites that are frequently used for suicides by jumping. While these studies
demonstrate that barriers lead to a reduction in the number of suicides by jumping at the site where they
are installed, thus far no study has found a statistically significant reduction in the local suicide rate
attributable to a barrier. All previous studies are case studies of particular sites, and thus have limited
statistical power and ability to control for confounding factors, which may obscure the true relationship
between barriers and the suicide rate. This study addresses these concerns by examining the relationship
between large, well-known bridges (“local landmark” bridges) of the type that are often used as suicide-
jumping sites and the local suicide rate, an approach that yields many more cases for analysis. If barriers
at suicide-jumping sites decrease the local suicide rate, then this implies that the presence of an
unsecured suicide-jumping site will lead to a higher local suicide rate in comparison to areas without
such a site. The relationship between suicides and local landmark bridges is examined across 3116 US
counties or county equivalents with negative binomial regression models. I found that while exposure to
local landmark bridges was associated with an increased number of suicides by jumping, no positive
relationship between these bridges and the overall number of suicides was detected. It may be impos-
sible to conclusively determine if barriers at suicide-jumping sites reduce the local suicide rate with
currently available data. However, the method introduced in this paper offers the possibility that better
data, or an improved understanding of which potential jumping sites attract suicidal individuals, may
eventually allow researchers to determine if means restriction at suicide-jumping sites reduces total
suicides.
...
This study examined the relationship between exposure to
large, locally notable bridges of the type frequently used for suicide
by jumping and suicides in 3116 US counties and county equiva-
lents over 17 years. This study found that exposure to these local
landmark bridges was associated with an increased number of
suicides by jumping in the county where the bridge was located.
However, no positive relationship between these bridges and the
overall number of all types of suicides was detected.
Given the relatively high cost of physical barriers at suicide-
jumping sites in relation to other suicide prevention efforts and
public safety projects, more research on the efficacy of such
barriers, as well as on alternative measures such as suicide hotline
phones (Glatt, 1987), is needed. It may be impossible to conclu-
sively determine if barriers or other measures at suicide-jumping
sites reduce the local suicide rate with currently available data.
However, by addressing some of the methodological shortcomings
of previous work, the approach developed in this study offers the
possibility that improved data, or an improved understanding of
which potential jumping sites attract suicidal individuals, may
eventually allow researchers to determine if means restriction at
suicide-jumping sites reduces total suicides.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hey, by the way, can we raise your income tax by 25%? I know it sounds like much, but it's not. Is it okay if we torture you so that you can "choose" to pay the extra tax and while we're at it maybe it'd be okay if we could torture you into "choosing" to confess to some crimes you didn't commit? I know, I know, it sounds like it'd be a coerced confession that you'd regret only moments later when we decide to punish you for your crime, but, when you think about it, it's actually a voluntary pre-meditated decision.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I've known people who've committed suicide, including one who jumped off a bridge (he was old, sick and had no close family and decided to take matters into his own hands). I wouldn't describe any of them as tortured. Unlike those who have suicides inflicted upon them.
Now will you answer my question? Do you believe there won't be an increase in collateral damage or is it a price worth paying?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote