You thought 12 grand to paint a blue line was crazy; how about a million bucks for a guard rail?It sounds nuts, but there was already excessive back patting in May of 2006 when the Mental Health Association of Santa Barbara and the county Search and Rescue publicly endorsed a CalTrans committee's plans to install a suicide prevention barrier along both sides of the Cold Spring Canyon Arch Bridge. Right off the bat the issue generated controversy. Thanks to the bureaucracy of entities such as CalTrans, these types of things take alot of time to flesh out. Here we are 18 months later and the debate is finally getting some serious media play. A group calling itself Friends of the Bridge has submitted an alternative proposal to CalTrans, forcing them to consider something other than a million dollar barricade. CalTrans being a public entity, by law it must review all measures proposed to it before it makes its determination about how to use the one million dollars that has already been allocated for a "traffic safety improvement project" on or around the bridge. Let the battle begin!
The Friends of the Bridge, mouthpieced by a man named Marc McGinnes, released their proposal last week countering the original CalTrans plan, forcing it into a review process that could take months, if not years. McGinnes is a retired UCSB Environmental Studies Senior Lecturer Emeritus with loose ties to the author of a study published in October of 2007, Garret Glasgow. Glasgow argued in his study against the barriers, placing him in the same camp as the Allies of the Arch, but for different reasons. Both McGinnes and Glasgow have been slammed in the local blogs this past week, the former for his insensitivity to victims of suicide and the latter for publishing a non-commissioned study that has yet to garner any peer review. The Supporters of the Span seem to have an aesthetic motivation against the barriers. Arguing that the bridge affords the best views of the Santa Ynez Valley that the County enjoys, they believe that installing a million buck balustrade will ruin the panorama that none of us should be enjoying as we drive across that overpass (safety first!). Glasgow argues that rails do not deter suicides, that other methods of suicide prevention are more effective and much cheaper, and the cost does not justify deterring what amounts to an average of one suicide attempt by high dive per year.
Of course my opinion of the situation is that everybody involved is (ahem) jumping to conclusions.
I know it was a long time ago but maybe my readers can enlighten me: when exactly did America decide that it knew best when an individual should depart this planet? I can tie in religion, Jack Kevorkian, Aaron Burr, and the War on Terror here but I'll spare you because I can simplify. I believe in an individuals right to choose. Whether it's a terminal cancer patient in severe pain or a guy who can't get over the fact that his girlfriend is banging his best friend, who am I to say that the individual has no right to expedite his quest to see what's on the other side of mortality? Why does the government have the right to legislate and allocate the ideology of self-immolation? Unless that suicide is a murder-suicide, as in the case of the 19 hijackers or the roided up wrestler, we would be better served to allow these people to exercise their free will to take their leap of faith, slash their wrists in the bathtub, or gobble a bottle of tranquilizers. The federal money granted to mental health associations could be used for so many other reasons than to anesthetize errrrr rehabilitate people that just want to check out early. Population control is a weak argument for allowing suicide to be legal in that the frequency of suicide related deaths is so low, but it doesn't hurt the overall assertion that we've already got too many unstable people on the planet. Factor in the inevitability of a CalTrans project going over time and way over budget, and the initial proposal is even more worthy of euthanization.
Given the choice between a million dollars for an idea that may not even work, or a couple hundred bucks for a few National Forest guys with some shovels and some trash bags to visit the bottom of the ravine once a year, which would you choose? I'll take the Park Rangers. If this kind of cradle to the grave oversight by the government gets passed, then what is the next logical step? Will we stake police out by the train tracks to stop drug addled homeless guys from jumping in front of the Amtrak? Let's just repeal the Second Amendment now so we can stop the throngs of people who decide that Bud Dwyer is their idol, and while we're at it we can officially censor out the end of The Shawshank Redemption when the warden eats a bullet.
The people that believe the government should control when and how you die are the same hypocrites that cry and whine about The Patriot Act infringing upon their civil liberties. That's why Schopenhauer and Hume would never be members of the ACLU. But if the proponents of the parapet get their way, CalTrans' next steps might be to roll back the speed limits on the 101 to 25 m.p.h., or to legislate penalties for Starbucks intake inside of a moving vehicle.
Hopefully the powers that be will do the only right thing to do in this situation: nothing.
13 comments:
There is a huge distinction between a rail on a bridge and cradle to grave oversight by the government. You have exaggerated to such a degree that you are ridiculous.
There are folks who carefully plan their deaths, but those aren't usually the ones who drive to a bridge inaccessible by foot and jump off.
People who drive to a bridge and jump off are usually seriously mentally ill. Most of those who have been prevented from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge end up being glad they didn't jump. It is as simple as that.
Glasgow has never disproven the effectiveness of barriers... ask him.
There may be a huge distinction, but isn't it a slippery slope? I think you weren't able to grasp that this was the point of the post.
I have a habit of connecting A to Z and losing alot of readers in the process because they're stuck looking for B. I believe this describes you, anon2:45, since you're stuck on Glasgow disproving the effectiveness of the barriers, but I never stated that in my post in the first place, so I don't think I'll ask him.
It's like a dance; please try to keep up.
Many if not most people who fail in a suicide attempt are grateful afterwards to those who helped them change their minds.
In any case it is our obligation, insofar as possible, to prevent others from misusing items under our control to hurt themselves. For this reason we don't leave loaded guns lying around, we build safety doors on elevators and railings on stairways, and -- yes -- suicide barriers on bridges. This is common sense. It is also compassionate.
Speaking of compassion, I imagine any person with feelings would be disgusted by your language regarding park rangers with shovels to pick up the remains. What a heartless comment!
Hey, MCC
I think anon simply overlooked the line about jumping to conclusions. When people are reading your post, it seems to seamlessly go from Glasgow's study to your opinion, almost as though you relied on Glasgow, in part, to come to your conclusion.
A little miscommunication of sorts, I think. I had to re-read the post to rectify anon's comment with yours, but you're right, you didn't rely on Glasgow at all.
I'm kind of torn on this.
I've had a relative try to commit suicide, but they were unsuccessful. Ever since, they have been remorseful and embarrassed, and thankful they didn't succeed.
But to what end-- why only the bridge? Is it because it is easier to prevent suicide there, as opposed to regulating knives in the kitchen, pills in the medicine cabinet, monitoring carbon monoxide levels in the garage...? Or is it because bridges on high inspire thoughts of falling and suicides, and the effort is one to combat that symbolism?
These are just questions I have. Like, is the selfishness of suicide just like the selfishness of loved ones who want to prevent a suicide so they don't have to mourn? (Not insensitive, but for me it's like 9/11 families who speak for or against anything. Thanks and now move on-- they're not all knowing, all powerful. Seriously, did Pearl Harbor Families have this kind of political influence? I'm tired of that interest group, but not so much of others. You shouldn't have a louder voice on every issue simply because a family member died.)
I don't think it's a slippery slope. I mean, I suppose this would only be a continuation of that rule-of-law-and-government slope we've been on since the Magna Carta, or maybe Hammurabi. Or maybe not.
But the concern over structures in place to prevent us from hurting ourselves is a valid one, I agree.
Just to add to my comment...
A lot of companies try to teach safety to their employees. Some are sincere about it. But they always tell the employees that they could find a way to break their neck in a padded cell... just try doing back-flips with no hands. It's not just about putting a physical obstacle in the way of a person's path toward harm. The mental picture--health and choices--are more important.
And yet, someone who lives may be more thankful to those who prevented their suicide.
A difficult debate, and I'm not sure on which side I fall.
"The people that believe the government should control when and how you die are the same hypocrites that cry and whine about The Patriot Act infringing upon their civil liberties. "
Uh, no, they aren't. In fact, it's those who (rightfully) decry government interference with the right to die but (wrongfully) support the Patriot Act who are hypocrites.
OK MC, you are copying Bill Clinton and prevaricating on the definition of `is'. Your Blog Entry reads...
"Glasgow argues that rails do not deter suicides..."
Then in your response to my 2:45pm post you write:
"... you're stuck on Glasgow disproving the effectiveness of the barriers, but I never stated that in my post in the first place, so I don't think I'll ask him."
I'm sorry, you did state in your post that Glasgow *argues* that barriers do not deter suicides. He does not argue that. He argues that he has been unable to prove that barriers do deter suicides... it can be that barriers do deter suicides and his method is so imprecise it cannot tell, which he admits.
A barrier on a bridge you can't even walk legally to is not getting to B from A on a scale where A is freedom and Z is total government cradle to grave monitoring.
It is not 1/26 of the way. Roughly 1 person jumps a year, out of 400,000 in our County, and maybe 1,000,000 within an hour's drive. So I'd say a barrier is at most 1/1000000 of the way from total freedom to cradle to grave monitoring.
But there is not even a 1/1000000 loss due the barrier, the barrier actually provides *more* freedom. Someone whose life is saved by the barrier (which is true, according to Seiden and others) goes on to experience a lot more freedom after they are saved. Same with their families and friends, who are spared the anguish and its consequences.
There is no slippery slope. A barrier on a bridge will not lead to universal GPS monitoring of people and their locations or Gun Control or Black Helicopters or One World Government or Forced Support of Minorities any other balderdash you fret over. As if Caltrans could ever pull off anything like a step toward cradle to grave monitoring, but perhaps your not able to grasp how preposterous a takeover of your freedom by *CALTRANS* is.
From Helmets to suicide barriers, it's all the same.Big Brother is sure we're all too stupid to make our own choices, so it costs a fortune and penalizes everyone else. My husband,who is short, said he just made it not to have to use a car seat. Police yourself, take care of your friends, and don't leave it up to the government.
The Cold Spring Canyon Arch Bridge is fully open to use by bicyclists and pedestrians.
The CHP phone receptionist has provided wrong information about this in the past, but the fact is that bicyclists and pedestrians may lawfully pass over the span so long as they do not loiter on it.
It is wonderful way to experience the unique grace and beauty of this bridge. Perhaps not for the faint of heart, but thankfully the opportunity to do this has not been outlawed or degraded by ugly barriers.
I just stopped into my 7-eleven Lompoc near my house to get some smokes, and I guy in an orange suit stopped me. You know who mcconfrontation is? he asked. I blew by him and got into my car and started to back out of my parking spot.
Well, the sucker moved his beaten up orange pickup truck and blocked me. Not enough room for me to pull forward. I got out of my car and screamed at the -ucker.
He said `I'm from the government, and I'm here to help mcconfrontation.'
`What agency, and do you have a warrant?'
`That information is classified sir.' His orange shirt and orange truck both had the Caltrans logo.
`We're concerned that mcconfrontation is not eating enough leafy green vegetables. Where can I find him?'
`Oh, on 4752 Cebrian Ave, New Cuyama.'
`Thank you, sir'. He headed to Highway 166.
anon5:40, please, grasp my obvious sarcasm. maybe you haven't read any of the posts here before and didn't understand that it is a prevailing literary tool I utilize. i do like your logic and use of the cold hard numbers, though. and i believe you are correct in your comment on glasgow. he did not argue in his study that barriers prevent suicide. he argued that there is no proof that barriers prevent suicide. thankyou for pointing that out for the readers.
and anon 10:44am: all i can say is... that was hilarious.
mc... you're a good egg. Glasgow is too, but I think he got blinkered by his own overreliance on statistical methods.
One million for a guardrail? Try $2.8 million.
http://blogabarbara.blogspot.com/search/label/Cold%20Spring%20Bridge
Post a Comment