C'mon now, Uncle Milbie. You know that it's about style, about the look. The folks in ol' SF don't want their beautiful bridge sullied by something as ugly as a safety device. They'll come back with the fatal flaw in that study-that those who were prevented from committing suicide were just out for the attention, and wouldn't have followed through anyhoo. Maybe they should just line the roadway with attractive neckties that would-be suiciders could use for their self-determined demises. It'd be stylish AND functional, and not detract from the fine city's, uh, reputation, as it were....
Reallytall | Email | Homepage | 03.04.08 - 11:44 am | #

Milbarge- Hm.

First, on the plastic shopping bags- you're right. The topic of human deaths via suffocation wasn't part of that debate. But I'm not sure that is necessarily a fair comparison, the issues are not only obviously separate, but approached from extremely different political angles. The laws about plastic bags in the city were passed because there are relatively few people who could come up with any far-reaching objections. Isn't it easier to pass something when opponents are saying "I love plastic! Let me keep my dimes!"?

In the bridge issue, you're dealing with an extremely divided population. The people who are against a suicide barrier aren't insensitive about human life. Beyond the aesthetic issues (which admittedly are shallow and a little alarming to some), there is concern about the structural integrity of a bridge that sometimes seems to be functional by way of fairy dust. Included in that concern: money.

The new study does knock off the opponents who say the suicide rate won't be lowered with the addition of the barrier, but it still doesn't address the feasibility, cost or effectiveness.
Lulu | Email | Homepage | 03.04.08 - 6:35 pm | #

Actually, the opposite is true -- despite the claims in that Washington Post article, there is no scientific evidence that suicide barriers save lives.

Thus far, nobody has been able to show that suicidal people deterred from committing suicide from a bridge don't go on to kill themselves in another place or in another way.

The Washington Post article you cite is just another example of the sloppy reporting on this topic that is misleading the public. In fact, that article simply repeats all the same mistaken claims previous articles made about the state of the scientific evidence. I wrote to the author (Karl Vick) and offered to go over the research with him to correct the record, but he refused.

I've linked my recent testimony to Caltrans on this matter on my website, in case anyone is interested:

http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/facul...ow/ Caltrans.pdf

As far as the decision to install a median barrier rather than a suicide barrier, it is best viewed in the context of spending safety money on projects that are proven to be effective and that benefit the vast majority of the (non-suicidal) bridge users.

That is, there are reasons to oppose a barrier besides keeping the bridge pretty or a stigma surrounding suicide. Some people oppose barriers because they are costly and unproven, and they believe there are more effective ways to promote public safety.

-Garrett
Garrett Glasgow | Email | Homepage | 03.08.08 - 8:59 pm | #

Milbarge,

Maybe San Franciscans, like Oregonians, just believe in a right to die? That seems to me quite the opposite of a stigma against suicide.
PG | Email | Homepage | 03.09.08 - 11:34 pm | #

But PG, one can believe in a right to die without feeling that the best way to express that belief is by erecting an attractive nuisance. One can believe in a right to die without encouraging death. In the same way, one can believe in a right to choose abortion while simultaneously believing/hoping they should be more rare.

Plus, I don't know what San Francisco's gun laws are, but I doubt citizens support the right to die enough that they want no restrictions on gun ownership, to make it easier for those who wish to commit suicide by gun.

Mr. Glasgow, I have not yet had a chance to read your linked testimony, but I plan to do so soon. Thanks for visiting and offering a comment.
Milbarge | Email | Homepage | 03.10.08 - 3:11 am | #

Garrett,
I read your Caltrans testimony and have to agree that there is no proof that suicide barriers save lives. Thing is, it doesn't really prove (nor can it) that it doesn't save lives. We then have to get into a philosophical discussion about whether potentially saving lives is worth the cost. All I know is that if someone is determined to kill themselves, there's probably no way of stopping them short of strapping them down and watching them 24/7, and that pesky constitution coupled with overall apathy make that an unlikely option. However, I don't necessarily want to be the one to provide them with the means to do it, and I'm amazed a city like SF, through its own inaction, would. If it's solely due to cost, I suppose I could understand. But if it is due to concerns over aesthetics (as my initial, rather glib comment implied) someone needs a serious priority check.
Reallytall | Email | Homepage | 03.10.08 - 1:22 pm | #

Reallytall,

You're absolutely right -- while there is no proof that barriers save lives, that doesn't therefore prove that they *don't* save lives.

In Santa Barbara the funds for the barrier proposed for the Cold Spring Bridge would come out of the highway safety budget. Of course, some people out here oppose barriers due to aesthetic concerns, but there is an explicit safety budget tradeoff as well. I'm not sure what the situation for the Golden Gate Bridge might be.

You're also right that the barrier issue raises a number of philosophical questions that my report doesn't (and can't possibly) address.

I'm certainly not saying that building a barrier is the wrong decision. However, I am arguing that we really don't know if barriers work or not, and thus building a barrier is a difficult decision that involves tradeoffs, not the no-brainer suggested in recent media stories.
Garrett Glasgow | Email | Homepage | 03.10.08 - 2:38 pm | #

I'm not saying there aren't costs or tradeoffs. But I guess I would just have different priorities -- for example, I would have spent the $25 million from the median barrier to at least see if I could come up with a workable suicide barrier. I understand the concept of cost-effectiveness, but to spend that much money for a problem that has cost one life in ten years doesn't seem cost-effective. Are you telling me that even $25 million wouldn't buy some kind of barrier or program (even just increased police patrols!) that would have reduced suicides by one in ten years? It just seems an odd focus for one's safety budget, is all.

I'm also not saying that San Francisco should spend an unlimited amount of money until it eliminates suicides at the bridge, as a higher priority than any other budget priority in the city. But I suppose I would like them to spend some more than they do to try to reduce suicides some. I guess that ultimately it's more of a "philosophical" disagreement it's easier for me to make when I don't have to zero-out the city's ledger. Fair enough.
Milbarge | Email | Homepage | 03.11.08 - 1:32 am | #

Milbarge,

One can't really be pro-choice with regard to abortion and also try to minimize the number of abortion clinics or otherwise put significant burdens on the ability to obtain an abortion. I'd be suspicious of the pro-choice credibility of someone who, for example, insisted that while surgical abortions should be allowed, RU-486 is somehow the wrong way to have an abortion even if the pregnant woman prefers it. I wouldn't encourage abortion, but I also wouldn't encourage suicide either. If I am pro-choice on these matters, however, once someone had made that choice, I don't see why it's my duty to block them from exercising it.

The comparison to guns laws isn't really on point. I don't know anyone whose main objection to gun ownership is that the owner will deliberately turn it on himself -- the fear is with regard to accidents and crimes. Are there people being accidentally or intentionally pushed off the bridge who are hurt by the lack of a suicide barrier? It's the same inaptness that characterized your comparison to the cost of preventing head-on collisions -- nobody wanted those collisions to happen, so they were accidents to be avoided if possible.

If San Francisco is putting a lot of money into dredging bodies out of the water, of course, there is a cost/ benefit argument in favor of the barrier simply to avoid the trouble of pulling out the jumpers.
PG | Email | Homepage | 03.11.08 - 2:48 am | #