Suicide bridges

Page 1 of 3123>
June 10th, 2013 at 8:56:01 AM permalink
1nickelmiracle
Member since: Mar 5, 2013
Threads: 24
Posts: 623
http://news.yahoo.com/portlanders-push-barrier-suicide-bridge-141135003.html?.tsrc=yfpnewsapp

Some bridges are known for suicides. To me it seems simple enough to demand proper bridge design should also include not enabling them to be used for people to commit suicide. Doing this doesn't take NASA and billions of dollars, but based on the comments in this article, most people don't think life isn't important enough to lift a finger.

A popular comment is people who want to commit suicide will find another way. Obviously this is not necessarily true, but people don't want to hear it. This is not only lazy, it's incorrect. Some might, but obviously some people will go on to die of natural causes and might even wind up doing good things for society. These kind of excuses and mental short cuts are driving me crazy.

It's too expensive is another common excuse. You build a bridge with a major design flaw allowing someone to commit suicide and potentially kill someone else and you care about the expense. It's not unheard of for people to jump killing themselves, so why as a bridge builder, are you willingly negligent? It's not that it's too expensive, it's people are greedy draining from society more likely. Really how much does aluminum cost?

Someone mentioned the SF bridge in one of the comments. He said it is not worth ruining the beauty of the bridge to prevent all the suicides. What is wrong with people to not have feelings for other members of society I wonder. The SF bridge isn't just a bridge, it's a suicide resort people travel long distances to kill themselves. The purpose of a bridge is not to be beautiful, it's to get across an obstacle easily and safely. It's not like we need to wait for the next Einstein to be born to figure out how to do this.

It's sad, but society does not value itself and I think the end of society is near. Rome they say was overcome by Barbarians, but perhaps the secret was lost in time, Rome was destroyed by the people becoming selfish and the Barbarians themselves. So often, people are so easily fooled by others, we are not too far off from collapse. People laugh at hearing formerly old logical arguments of witch trials, but they're still fooled in the same ways today, but in different forms.
June 12th, 2013 at 10:52:30 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
You have to compare the financial value of the expected net production of a person over his/her lifetime, and multiply it by the number of people saved within the period of time you anticipate the bridge to stand. You'll have to adjust for expected inflation, for all of the people who aren't getting saved this year, and then see what you have. The expected cost of saving these people may well be less than the expected cost of these people dying, but I doubt it.

That's just speaking Macro-Economically, though. Even in the above case, the lives of these people, (which we are assuming to be more valuable paying to save them) may not have that same value for the entity, or entities, actually paying for the barrier to be constructed. In fact, I very seriously doubt if the average life of any one of these people has any great value to the City of Portland, (in this case) at all.

However, it seems that you wish to discuss the intrinsic, non-quantifiable, values of these would-be saved lives. Okay, how about the intrinsic value of free will? If a person, spur of the moment, decides that they don't want to live anymore, who am I to demand that they continue to live? Why would I prevent the death of someone who wants to die? Morally, that's no better than killing someone who actually wants to live, either way, you are trying to dictate a person's demise (or lack thereof) to them, against their will.

The only moral problem I have with any of this may be those bridges, such as in Portland, which are above roads. With such bridges, you could very well have a person commit a suicide which involves people who would rather be uninvolved. They could land on a car, for example. If someone absolutely insists on committing suicide, I would greatly prefer if they did so without jumping on my vehicle from a great height...especially if I am driving it at the time.

So, no problems with the San Francisco bridge, because you're talking about water. As long as the person jumps when there are no boats around, the suicide should have a very minimal impact on innocent bystanders. No traffic to impede, for starters.

Could you imagine being late for work because some selfish asshole decided to jump on the road you take everyday, causing other accidents, and all of that needed to be cleaned up? The nerve.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
June 12th, 2013 at 11:49:45 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Mission146
In fact, I very seriously doubt if the average life of any one of these people has any great value to the City of Portland, (in this case) at all.


As the issue of "useless people" comes up so often I always remember the satirical passage in the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The planet Golgafrincham creatively solved the problem of middle managers: it blasted them in to space. Golgafrinchan Telephone Sanitisers, Management Consultants and Marketing executives were persuaded that the planet was under threat from an enormous mutant star goat. As I remember the BBC series it included hair dressers, fashion consultants, and other such people.

The useless third of their population was then packed in Ark spaceships and sent to an insignificant planet. That planet turned out to be Earth, where the arrival of the Golgafrincham B Ark rather disrupted an experiment designed to find the question to the ultimate Answer.

Shortly after the ark was blasted away from Golgafrincham the entire remaining two thirds of the population was wiped out by a plague contracted from a dirty telephone.
June 12th, 2013 at 12:06:18 PM permalink
AcesAndEights
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 6
Posts: 351
Quote: Mission146
The only moral problem I have with any of this may be those bridges, such as in Portland, which are above roads. With such bridges, you could very well have a person commit a suicide which involves people who would rather be uninvolved. They could land on a car, for example. If someone absolutely insists on committing suicide, I would greatly prefer if they did so without jumping on my vehicle from a great height...especially if I am driving it at the time.

I live near a bridge that has been used for suicides frequently in the past, and recently a suicide barrier was erected. The main justification for doing so was very similar to your point here.
"You think I'm joking." -EvenBob
June 12th, 2013 at 3:04:48 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
There was a section of San Diego called "Old Town" where the city started. A lot of pedestrian traffic came through.

There are three kinds of trains that come through. A trolley that makes a stop roughly every mile. It can get to 55 mph, but it rarely gets to top speed because of the short distances. A country commuter train which stops roughly every 5 miles. These trains can go 79 mph which has been the mandate since 1951. The final trains may be limited to 79 mph, but they don't usually stop at the small stations, so they come sailing through at top speed. Generally it is assumed that these trains would be the most likely targets for accidents and suicides.

One weekend three people were killed near the Old Town station. One for each type of train. Indications were that all were accidents, but you can't always be sure.

Generally speaking it costs a fortune to make anything idiot and suicide proof.

While many suicides sadly go to great length not to inconvenience people, others are seemingly unconcerned about collateral damage.
June 13th, 2013 at 5:11:39 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Pacomartin


While many suicides sadly go to great length not to inconvenience people, others are seemingly unconcerned about collateral damage.


It was Diogenes of Sinope who posed, "If I lack awareness, then why should I care what happens to me when I am dead?"

Same concept, I would say. The people who are unconcerned about the collateral damage probably just figure that they'll be dead anyway, so screw it. With all due respect to the deceased, those people were probably @$$holes, anyway, no big loss.

It is a shame that the people who commit suicide in such a fashion not to inconvenience people decided to commit suicide at all, I would imagine that they were fairly considerate of others when they lived and would have continued to be, had they not killed themselves.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
June 13th, 2013 at 5:16:14 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: AcesAndEights
I live near a bridge that has been used for suicides frequently in the past, and recently a suicide barrier was erected. The main justification for doing so was very similar to your point here.


That's also where you could be getting into issues of substantial cost. I've already discussed the monetary and production value of the lives of those who would otherwise choose to kill themselves, but this is where things could get really expensive with the Municipality. If you have someone who jumps and lands on a car, and such event ultimately causes that driver to kill himself, or others, the family(families) of the innocent bystander(s) probably have a massive lawsuit against the Municipality for not building that barrier. At least, I would think they would. Maybe they'd lose, I don't know.

If there would be no case, there, in purely production/monetary terms, the lives of the likely innocent bystanders and associated costs probably aren't worth that much to the city, either.

I wonder how all of this works with auto insurance...I think I'm almost curious enough to call my insurance guy and find out. He'll answer even the most ridiculous and unlikely of questions, good guy.

"Get to a Better State," with State Farm.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
June 13th, 2013 at 6:01:07 AM permalink
1nickelmiracle
Member since: Mar 5, 2013
Threads: 24
Posts: 623
Mission146

If you're running a business, all you care about are your own needs and costs to benefits work well. When it comes to government, the problem is the numbers are likely to not count all factors and just a manipulation. The better formula would be to make priorities to benefit the public good. Build a bridge, make it safe and prevent misuse of the structure. I think people are hoodwinked to believe it can't be affordable. If it can't be done, it's because private interests are raping the government so hard. Want to visit a park, then you should pay for it, but want to have an tiny airport open and staffed just for the private jets, then the government should keep it open and pay for it, etc..

I just really think it's negligence on the bridge builders and government for paying for a bridge design which is flawed. It's not like we don't know about gravity and didn't know better. It's simple enough to take reasonable approaches for safety and should be required. If it's not done, it's because people are greedy and are too simpleminded. You're not denying them the ability to commit suicide, you're just not letting them do it from a bridge easily and saving people who may fall accidentally. I can imagine some reasonably cheap netting might be enough to do the job cheap.

Your reasoning the people are worthless and the next step in the thinking is the police or fire shouldn't help people since the people calling are too poor or old. It might be the future the way things are trending. If the money was based on reality, then I might believe it when we're told there isn't any to afford things government should do. The money isn't real though and what can be bought with it can be manipulated to make people believe it.
June 13th, 2013 at 8:33:53 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: 1nickelmiracle
I just really think it's negligence on the bridge builders and government for paying for a bridge design which is flawed. It's not like we don't know about gravity and didn't know better.


Mostly it is about older designs. Nearly everyone can come up with thousands of examples about old designs or industrial practices that were far more hazardous than we have today.

If you travel to the third world one of the first things you notice is the number of public places with high drops without a safety rail. If you comment about the situation many locals will point out that it is only an issue for "stupid people", or some such comment. The extreme measures that we go through in the developed world are simply alien to their way of thinking.
June 13th, 2013 at 10:40:38 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: 1nickelmiracle
Mission146

If you're running a business, all you care about are your own needs and costs to benefits work well. When it comes to government, the problem is the numbers are likely to not count all factors and just a manipulation. The better formula would be to make priorities to benefit the public good. Build a bridge, make it safe and prevent misuse of the structure. I think people are hoodwinked to believe it can't be affordable. If it can't be done, it's because private interests are raping the government so hard. Want to visit a park, then you should pay for it, but want to have an tiny airport open and staffed just for the private jets, then the government should keep it open and pay for it, etc..


The numbers almost never count all factors, there's always some variable that gets overlooked. I think that the responsibility that a Government should have is simply to make a bridge that is safe when it is being used for its intended purpose, which is to cross an obstacle, as opposed to jump off of it. Those who use bridges in order to commit suicide are in the wrong for not using the bridge for its intended purpose. The intended purpose of a highway, for example, is to be driven upon, not to physically hurl oneself in front of an eighteen-wheeler.

The highways also have signs prohibiting pedestrians from being on the highway, with rare exceptions. My understanding of the State of Ohio law is that, if your car breaks down and you make it to the shoulder, you're allowed to leave it there for up to 72 hours. Of course, you have to go somewhere (if you don't want to have it towed immediately), so you can be walking on the highway for that purpose. However, if a State Patrolman sees you walking, he'll want to give you a ride to the next exit, instead.

So, how do you prevent people from deliberately hurling themselves in front of eighteen wheelers? The answer is simple: we're not allowed to have highways anymore because they don't exist for the public good.

The problem with that is, the cost of not having highways greatly exceeds the cost of people hurling themselves in front of eighteen-wheelers. Same thing. The cost of the barriers on the bridges, assumedly, exceeds the cost of the damage caused by people committing suicide.

Quote:
I just really think it's negligence on the bridge builders and government for paying for a bridge design which is flawed. It's not like we don't know about gravity and didn't know better. It's simple enough to take reasonable approaches for safety and should be required. If it's not done, it's because people are greedy and are too simpleminded. You're not denying them the ability to commit suicide, you're just not letting them do it from a bridge easily and saving people who may fall accidentally. I can imagine some reasonably cheap netting might be enough to do the job cheap.


That's the thing, we are expected to understand gravity and to know better. I've walked across bridges, and I can say that anyone who falls off of a bridge, "Accidentally," was probably acting like an idiot. The barriers on almost all, if not all, of the bridges I have been on are sufficiently high that, if you were using the bridge for its intended purpose on the walkway section, and slipped, you would not go over.

I see what you are saying about not denying them the ability to commit suicide, but you're certainly making it more difficult for them. That's pretty inconsiderate if it is a bridge over water and the effect on others will be minimal.

I have already partially conceded the argument about cars below, though, in my opinion someone jumping off a bridge should be done with minimal impact on others.

Quote:
Your reasoning the people are worthless and the next step in the thinking is the police or fire shouldn't help people since the people calling are too poor or old. It might be the future the way things are trending. If the money was based on reality, then I might believe it when we're told there isn't any to afford things government should do. The money isn't real though and what can be bought with it can be manipulated to make people believe it.


I don't reason that they are worthless, just worth less, less than the cost of implementation. The thing about the police and the Fire Department...and I think some 90% of Fire Departments are volunteer...is that you have something that exists for the public good AND is paid for by the public, in the form of taxes and levies, at least those who can pay. The people who are poor may not always be poor, and the people who are old have already paid their money and are entitled to the service.

Furthermore, with the police and the fire department, you're talking about a community good. They benefit the entire community. With these suicide barriers, as it were, the cost only, "Benefits," people who would otherwise use the bridge to commit suicide, and bystanders adversely impacted by such. So, your cost/benefit with the police/fire departments is much more in line than with suicide barriers.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
Page 1 of 3123>