Golden Gate Bridge suicide net worst idea of all time????

[bigs5068]

What if they jump from the net? By the way San Francisco is BROKE. There is no money it would be nice to give everybody everything and protect all people from anything bad that could ever happen, but you can't. It is sad that some people die on the bridge, but you can't protect everybody. If it was going to cost a few hundred dollars I would say, but 50 million PROJECTED. Contractors aren't known for coming in under their projected price by the way. Not to mention the maintenance and amount of money it will take to get someone out of the net if they don't jump from the net. Honestly, programs like this have great intentions, but they are not sustainable. At least that is my opinion.

[Liz Lemon]

The city has to pay for the whole thing?  Is no federal funding able to help?  I would think that since the bridge is part of an interstate that the city doesn't have to fund everything on their own.

Of course, government at every level (especially the state of California) is broke.  I see where you're coming from, maybe this is a project best left to a time when there is more funding available, but times like these are when suicides go up.  I think the nets aren't going to save lives by catching people as much as they will deter such activity.

Another thing to consider is the cost of search and rescue.  How much does it cost every time a person or body has to be pulled out of the Bay?  How much does it cost to look for bodies?  I honestly don't know the answer to that but it has to be costly to the city to deal with that, as well as the handling and burial of any John/Jane Does that might come their way.  Also, I don't really see how a safety net is going to detract tourists.  The way I've always imagined it, I never really thought it would take away from the beauty of the structure and scenery.  Do you have any research to back this up?  I definitely see your point about the cost, and certainly if there's no money for it I don't really understand how it can even happen, but a rescue net probably is a good idea that should have been done years ago.

[bigs5068]

They are going to charge a toll to walk across the bridge that is one of their ideas to fund the project. It is currently free, but that will probably deter tourism and take away from a great attraction. The aesthetic value I don't really know if it will look terrible or not. It is a massive project and there is no real way to know what the final product will look like. Maybe it will look better who knows, but I would imagine the scenery of the bridge will impacted negatively by a massive net that was built to deal with something as dark as suicide. It is mostly state funding I believe and as far as I know federal funds are not being used to support it. Even if they are I think the Federal Government has more pressing matters to spend money on.

Honestly, even if America and California ever are flush again I don't think that warrants spending excessive money on things that probably won't help. I am sure there are some costs expended by the government to deal with the current suicides, but it is nowhere near the 50 million projected funds. Again, I would be blown away if it came in under or at the PROJECTED COST. The main argument a lot of opponents had was that if you are going to spend 50 million dollars to deal with suicides at the last minute why  not spend it on helping all the homeless and deranged people before it gets to that point.

In all honestly, I would imagine and I am not using data to back this up that if you had a failed suicide attempt your life would not ever be the same. If your going to spend 50 million dollars it might as well go to stopping it way before it gets to the point of jumping off the bridge.

[diantha88]

For god's sake, look at the FACTS b4 you jump to conclusions. Research has very clearly shown that when other places around the world have put up similar nets, it HAS in fact stopped most people from committing suicide who would have used the bridge - and the vast majority have NOT used other means or other bridges. It's much more complicated psychologically than you assume. 1 person every 2 weeks is way, way too many.

[bigs5068]

I am sure it might save some lives. Still to spend 50 million minimum obviously a lot more because construction never goes smoothly & maintenance on it the cost will be outrageous. If people were required to wear helmets every second of the day a few lives might be saved. If cars could not go faster than 10 mph thousands of lives would be saved, but eventually you have to stop wasting money on being paternal. You cannot save everybody. Not to mention many of the people that commit suicide on the bridge are homeless people. Instead of spending 50 million x god knows what amount to stop them from killing themselves at the last minute, why not spend the money on either helping homeless people get assistance, or improving education, or a million other ways that would benefit everybody. If it cost 12 bucks to put up a net I would all for it, but the cost is outrageous compared to the good it will serve. 50 million + dollars could be spent to change a lot more than 29 lives.

[PriaBee3]

I can definitely understand both sides of this argument. I think that there were good intentions behind it, but probably not the most thought out decision. If someone is set on committing suicide, they will find an alternative way to do it, regardless if there is a net on the Golden Gate bridge. However, it does, in fact, have extremely high suicide rates - quite possibly due to the attention it draws (as suicide is often linked to the need for some sort of attention). Hopefully there is a decrease in suicide rates from this!

[bigs5068]

That is the least we can hope for. San Francisco just drives me crazy because if someone produces a one sided documentary the whole town goes up in arms. We are now passing legislation to ban circumcision for everyone and McDonald's is not allowed to sell Happy Meals because of that Food Inc movie. I forgot what the reasonign behind the circumsiion law was, but I am almost positive it was some movie.

It is scary to be in a town that is so one sided to either the left or right and SF definitely qualifies for being to far to the left.