 |
| A rendering from the Golden Gate Bridge District depicting the proposed suicide barrier. |
Discussion about the potential addition of a "safety net" to the Golden Gate Bridge has been ongoing since 1970, and in 2010, transportation officials began drawing up the plans, "setting the stage for construction if money can be found." The Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District is supposed to receive a report on the efforts today.
The San Jose Mercury News notes that "a federal transportation bill signed last july by President Obama... includes language allowing federal funds to flow to the project. Though it doesn't provide any of the $50 million needed to build the planned net barrier, it makes it eligible for federal cash, which was not the case previously."
Clearly, the proposed barrier is a public good (it would be funded with taxes collected by the government, nonexclusive in its benefits, and one person's use would not reduce its usefulness to others), but this doesn't mean that everyone favors its construction, nor does it mean that it is necessarily good when all factors are considered, as valid disagreement over its construction illustrates.
Advocates of the barrier cite the government's obligation to support infrastructure that protects citizens. According to data from the Bridge Rail Foundation, 33 people committed suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge in 2012, and "86 people were removed from the bridge because they presented an immediate risk of suicide." This LA Times Op-Ed calls the bridge "a public health hazard," noting, "The
Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building, St. Peter's Basilica, the Duomo in
Florence, the Sydney Harbour Bridge and many other international landmarks have
suicide barriers. But not the Golden Gate Bridge."
Those who oppose the construction of the barrier cite the net's hefty pricetag (the most current estimate is around $50 million). They note that even if the funds are readily available, they may be a wasted economic endeavour to no successful moral ends; people may simply find another means by which to end their lives (perhaps a more violent and/or publicly disturbing means).
The proposed barrier would extend 20 feet below and 20 feet out from the side of the bridge and is designed to collapse slightly on impact, making it difficult to get out.
Whether your reasons are economic, moral, or otherwise, do you support or oppose the construction of the proposed suicide barrier?
6 comments:
As the federal government has gotten increasingly involved in the lives of citizens, the Golden Gate situation is another instance where people demand that the government interfere for their general welfare. I'm not sure if the suicides count as a "public hazard" since if these suicidal individuals are serious about rashly ending their own lives, they will find another way. But hey, if Obama succeeds in outlawing guns, maybe the number of gun-assisted suicides will go down.
A net to prevent suicides seems overall ridiculous to me. This is a serious problem but a net? What's to stop these individuals from finding another random bridge to start throwing themselves off. What's the government supposed to do? Should they put up nets on every bridge from California to Maine? With our current economic woes, there are more important issues to waste our money on.
The bridge net is just too expensive. I'd bet that all the funeral costs that result from the suicides would cost less than the money to construct the net. Maybe a better way of helping these people is by getting them psychological help early on. What caused them to pursue such desperate means? Is the current economic situation causing some citizens to lose hope in living?
Overall, this is a very tragic story but the solution is idiotic. Some disagree. But the net "solution" is simply cutting away at the branches of the problem without regard for the root of what is motivating the suicides.
How about instead of using $50 million on a safety net, we put more funds into improving mental healthcare? It seems like people are constantly seeking the shortcut path to solving a problem, but such a path is only a short-term solution. Wouldn't it be better to fight the problem by attacking the roots? Let's start saving lives by taking action before things get out of hand. If someone wants to commit suicide, they will find a way, so rather than spending all that money on a huge net, we should find a smarter and more cost-efficient alternative to prevent suicides early on such as suicide prevention programs that educate people about suicide and reach out to those in need. I'm willing to bet that a good suicide prevention program will potentially save more than 33 lives per year. Let's erase the stigma of depression, suicide, and mental illnesses in general by educating the public.
While I agree with Aaron and Matthew that mental health needs to be addressed, I am actually in favor of having the suicide barrier. I think that this project and the $50 million associated with it will not only save lives, but also help to continue to reboot the economy by providing construction workers jobs in the construction of the barrier. And hopefully the barrier along with increased funding for mental health will save lives, but the barrier will probably outlast the oscillating government funding between the different administration's varying budgets.
Suicides also have other public costs which include traffic delays, coast guard efforts to find and recover bodies, and police involvement. One way to lower these costs is mental health services; the other way is the proposed suicide barrier. The barrier would lower some of these other costs, but the only way to completely eliminate suicides completely, which although sounds nice, it is not likely possible. So I propose the combination of the two efforts.
I whole-heartedly agree with Kathryn. In response to Matthew's earlier comment concerning constructing suicide nets on every bridge, I would like to point out that, unfortunately, it would seem that not all bridges were created equal. The Golden Gate is an internationally-recognized (arguably, universally-recognized)landmark that holds significant symbolic value for this area. Tourists travel for thousand of miles just to see it, and the suicides associated with the bridge somewhat mar its beauty and reputation. For this reason, it is worth considering the Golden Gate as a candidate for suicide nets before any other bridge.
However, even if it would be costly to retrofit every bridge in the area with a net, it may worthwhile to install nets in all future bridges, as Matthew's article suggests. I would imagine that the $50 million dollar cost is due to the unique difficulties of altering the Golden Gate retroactively, and these costs may be significantly more reasonable for future projects to implement at the time of construction.
I would also love to see more attention given to mental health care as all previous comments have mentioned. Nonetheless, I think the net is worthwhile. Unfortunately, prevention can only go so far.
I also find it worth noting that while the Golden Gate may be by far the most popular suicide location in the world, there are still accidental deaths that occur and this barrier would prevent both.
I definitely agree that building a safety net will not solve the problem as a whole, given that a)there are plenty of bridges/ other suicide methods that are alternatives and b) that we should be focusing on fixing the root of the problem; our lack of support and recourses for suicidal people. However, I do believe that the safety net is important and will hopefully save some lives, as well as create more jobs to keep the economy slowly rolling. It would ideal if they could find a cost effective way of building a barrier on the bridge while also creating more recourses for the people struggling with such issues.
Post a Comment