[suicide] and the golden gate bridge
![]() In an attempt to circumvent suicide, the Golden Gate Bridge authority has voted to install nets twenty feet below the deck to prevent deaths: The Golden Gate Bridge is a frequent site for suicides and is sometimes reported to be the most popular place to commit suicide in the world. The deck is approximately 245 feet (75 m) above the water. After a fall of approximately four seconds, jumpers hit the water at some 88 miles per hour (142 km/h), which is nearly always fatal. Most of those who survive the impact die in the cold water. The photo below shows how the stainless steel netting would look: ![]() There are three questions I'd like to ask: 1. What is the maximum height a person can fall from, into water? Here is one answer. Here is another. Olympic divers leap from a ten metre tower. Seems to me, all things being equal, that around 30 metres would be maximum if the intention was to survive. 2. Why, if a person jumped and hit the net, could he/she not jump again off the net and suicide that way? Seems a bit of a waste of money to put the net so high. Then again, there is the shipping to consider below and the aesthetics. 3. Should consideration be given to potential suicides, at taxpayers' expense? Jury's out on this one. Personally, suicide is no way out as it is a one way trip to the nether regions and I don't mean the water below. You know, I'd advise them to make that call, after all: Labels: golden gate bridge, physics, suicide |











Thoughts on "[suicide] and the golden gate bridge"
-
William Gruff says ... (12 October 2008 05:29) :
-
UBERMOUTH says ... (12 October 2008 08:21) :
-
James Higham says ... (12 October 2008 08:26) :
-
TBRRob says ... (12 October 2008 10:10) :
-
Dragonstar says ... (12 October 2008 11:56) :
-
UBERMOUTH says ... (12 October 2008 13:36) :
-
jailhouselawyer says ... (12 October 2008 14:05) :
-
CherryPie says ... (12 October 2008 14:42) :
-
James Higham says ... (12 October 2008 16:05) :
-
CherryPie says ... (12 October 2008 19:44) :
-
dearieme says ... (12 October 2008 20:05) :
-
Colin Campbell says ... (12 October 2008 20:08) :
-
James Higham says ... (12 October 2008 21:13) :
-
BobG says ... (13 October 2008 00:46) :
-
James Higham says ... (13 October 2008 09:22) :
Add your thoughtsHigham you have lost the plot.
You would think it would be a popular murder scene too,if they are shark sushi or get washed out to sea.
Why don't they just make the net higher, caging the bridge in somewhat?
If lots of ppl jumped into the net, I imagine for the fish it would be poetic justice. :)
How long before the Government was sued because a jumper fell in steel net and broke hip? :)
William, if you're referring to the nature of the posts - maybe so. If you're referring to the recent unpleasantness - I'm right on the money with the evidence at hand.
Ubermouth - they maintained they couldn't raise the barrier due to cost and aesthetic reasons. It just seems a bit strange to me that it would only be a partial deterrent, this net below.
I believe terminal velocity for a human is about 120mph. (Please not I could be wrong on this).
Anyway I believe due this effect and if you hit water at the right angle. That is -- like an arrow. You can survive any height.
My advice would be if you're going to jump off the ggb don't do a belly flop.
I like Ubermouth's idea of netted people!
Easiest deterrent would be to fix the net along the railings to stop them jumping altogether.
Or fine every *&&!?^! who walks on the bridge. It will be cheaper and generate revenue for the city.
What's to stop jumpers simply jumping from the wire netting instead?
I agree with Dragonstar, the nets would be better fixed along the railings.
Yes, JHL - that's what I was saying too. There's no point to it.
Uber - yes, they'd sue all right.
Rob - up to speed now, thanks.
DS and Cherie - they say it's too expensive.
they say it's too expensive
In answer to that I would say the alternative option pictured is a waste of money as it clearly won't work!
If they equipped the bridge with a free poison-pill dispenser, everything could be achieved with far less mess and expense.
Having driven over the bridge many times, it is at least a very scenic spot to end your life. Not very solitary however.
Right, Cherie.
Dearieme - why didn't I think of that?
Colin - the setting is important.
In general - maybe they could offer free bungee rubbers from an emergency box.
I don't see a reason to do it, myself. If someone wants to check out, they will do it anyway. And it's nobody's business but their own. At least this way they don't leave a mess for someone else to clean up.
All in all, it seems a bad move to put up the netting. Perhaps the best way would be to employ a man either end of the bridge, for a fraction of the cost of installation and maintenance, to vet any pedestrians after a certain hour.
In the end, the clever would get a way round it and one can't do anything with them. As Bob says, the evidence gets swept away quickly.