Suicide bridges

"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."

Deliberate comparison of apples and oranges.

"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"

People do accidentally fall off bridges. I can't argue it wasn't an accident like you assume. I fell off a bridge when I was just about 5-6 and it was an accident. It was about an 8 feet fall onto rocks in water, so I was lucky I wasn't hurt. It was more of a land bridge over a creek and I leaned over too much and fell. There was no railing, but a 1 foot high piece of cement over the land.

Inconsiderate? Very funny, to you apparently.

"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."

You don't reason they are "worth less", you completely guess.

You want to believe suicide prevention only benefits the jumpers, but it's not true.

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

Deliberate comparison of apples and oranges.

I'm comparing something used for convenience of travel and the potential hazards thereof to something else used for travel and the potential hazards thereof!

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

People do accidentally fall off bridges. I can't argue it wasn't an accident like you assume. I fell off a bridge when I was just about 5-6 and it was an accident. It was about an 8 feet fall onto rocks in water, so I was lucky I wasn't hurt. It was more of a land bridge over a creek and I leaned over too much and fell. There was no railing, but a 1 foot high piece of cement over the land.

Inconsiderate? Very funny, to you apparently.

If you're a kid, then that's a little different, and parents do have to be watchful. However, it doesn't sound like you're talking about a Government built and sanctioned bridge, do correct me if I am wrong. I guess all I am saying is that I have never personally seen a bridge, with walkways, over which cars are also intended to travel, that didn't have a barrier less than three feet high.

Please excuse my morbid sense of humor when it comes to such things. I've known quite a few people who have committed suicide, I assure you, their deaths are not something I take lightly.

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

You don't reason they are "worth less", you completely guess.

You want to believe suicide prevention only benefits the jumpers, but it's not true.

I'm not guessing at anything! It's the expected net production cost of the loss of their lives versus the actual cost of implementation of the barriers. Trust me, if the cost-benefit analysis was such that the Municipality/Government would easily save more money by having the full-on barriers in place, they would be in place.

How many people have died on that Portland bridge? Do you believe that their NET production value is more than three million, or so?

Quote: Mission146

I'm not guessing at anything! It's the expected net production cost of the loss of their lives versus the actual cost of implementation of the barriers.

Straightforward cost benefit analysis rarely comes out in favor of protecting peoples lives. You can never build a weapon for as cheaply as a suicide operator. Similarly it is far more costly to save people from hurting themselves than to let them die. It doesn't matter if you are talking about suicide or addiction.

I’m reminded of the quote from Fight Club…

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Same thing, more or less.

Other than that, the OP’s argument is way too nanny-state for me. I expect a bridge to not fall, and I expect the railing to both keep a wayward car on the deck, as well as prevent reasonable accidental falls. After that, safety depends on the operator.

The Texas stadium fan fall seemed a reasonable argument. Those railing are quite short, and I can understand the complaint even if I disagree. But to prevent the purposeful end around of the safety equipment? I can’t put that responsibility on the designers and builders.

Quote: Mission146

I'm comparing something used for convenience of travel and the potential hazards thereof to something else used for travel and the potential hazards thereof!

Roads and bridges are both used for travel, but it's about as close as they come to being similar for the purposes of this discussion.
Bridges have a constant level of danger while roads have a variable level of danger. There has to be a vehicle on the road for someone to get hurt and anything to prevent injuries from happening on them is impractical with current technology. A bridge will always be a danger and it is practical to take preventative steps to save lives with targeted measures. Comparing a road to a bridge is just a false analogy fallacy in this case because transportation use is the only similarity they have and differ on inherent risk.

Quote: Mission146

I'm not guessing at anything! It's the expected net production cost of the loss of their lives versus the actual cost of implementation of the barriers. Trust me, if the cost-benefit analysis was such that the Municipality/Government would easily save more money by having the full-on barriers in place, they would be in place.

How many people have died on that Portland bridge? Do you believe that their NET production value is more than three million, or so?

We have no idea how to calculate because we don't know how many people die or how to value them. It's kind of a useless argument for this reason. Lets use the lifetime earnings of a HS diploma of 2 million and college degree of 3 million. Then what? If you want to attempt an argument like this, you need to prove it and not just say if it was done, I would be right. Even if you did, you still have to argue constitutional issues which would get complicated since none of us most likely are expert enough and wouldn't know much about Oregon.

Cost benefit analysis leads to actual horrible results dedicating resources to drug enforcement and DUIs and not as much to rapes, murders, theft, etc. so it's really not a good way to run a government whose purpose is based on responsibility and duties to citizens. The government owes it's existence to the people and the people do not owe their existence to the government. You can see where cost-benefits become excuses for not ignoring government's responsibility.