The Final Leap by John Bateson Read Free Book Online Page A

bridge in one direction and eliminated them in the other. The real purpose of this was to improve traffic flow; however, it also would free up half the tollbooth workers who could be reassigned to patrol the bridge. The increased surveillance reduced the number of suicides, but only temporarily. The number dropped from twenty-nine in 1968 to seventeen in 1969; however, it rose to thirty-seven in 1970, thirty-five in 1971, and forty in 1972.
    There was enough momentum in late 1969 to convene a symposium on Golden Gate Bridge suicides. Among those speaking were three national suicide experts—psychiatrist Jerome Motto and psychologists Richard Seiden and Edwin Shneidman. Motto noted that the Golden Gate Bridge attracts suicides because it’s easily accessible, is simple (no preparation is needed), there’s no mess, death is virtually guaranteed, and there’s a psychological appeal (jumping from the bridge is dramatic). Seiden recommended that there be an epidemiological investigation in order to provide an overview of the problem as well as answer questions such as who jumps, when, where on the bridge, and why. Shneidman suggested that an aerodynamically-approved barrier be temporarily bolted onto the entire length for three months, then removed for three months, then restored and taken down in alternating three-month intervals over the course of three years, with subsequent studies done to determine the effectiveness of the barrier. (He noted the moral dilemma if, during the first three months, there were no suicides whether authorities had the right to take down the barrier, making suicide possible again, and said public opinion would have to determine that.) Bridge District board members said that they would study the proposals, but ended up taking no action.
    A year later, the district commissioned the firm Anshen & Allen Architects to develop several designs for a suicide barrier. The designs included barbed wire fencing, safety netting, plexiglas screening, horizontal tension cables, vertical tension rods, U-shaped spikes on top of the rail, low-voltage electricity, and high-voltage laser beams. Many of the designs were deemed unattractive, and since the electric fence and laser beams might burn pedestrians and bridge workers, they were removed from consideration.
    Three designs looked promising, and Anshen & Allen was hired to draft preliminary drawings. The designs, labeled 11, 16, and 17, consisted of thin, vertical steel rods eight feet high and six inches apart. Eventually, design 11 was eliminated because its curved spikes at the top were out of keeping with the rest of the bridge, and number 17 was eliminated due to its $3.5 million-plus price tag. The remaining design, number 16, held interest for three reasons. First, at $750,000 it was relatively affordable. Second, by replacing the current, solid bridge rails with thin steel rods, it would reduce the weight of the bridge by forty pounds per square foot, which in turn would lower the cost of bridge insurance because the insurance was based on weight per linear foot. Third, the slim steel rods (painted orange to match the rest of the structure) would provide everyone who used the bridge— motorcyclists, cyclists, and pedestrians—with fuller views of San Francisco Bay and the shorelines.
    According to a Bridge District report, there were 102 suicides and 386 thwarted attempts on the bridge from 1970 to 1972, when the Anshen & Allen study was being reviewed—more than in any three-year period in the bridge’s history to that point (there were actually 112 confirmed suicides during this time according to other sources). Even so, Bridge District directors determined that none of the Anshen & Allen designs was acceptable. No specific reasons were given, but one thing that was clear was that money was not a factor. Instead of a suicide deterrent, Bridge District officials allocated $15 million of the $17.5 million they had in reserves