I am writing to correct a couple of misperceptions that appeared in Sarah E. Thien’s article on June 19 (“Suicide ‘destination’ may soon be no more”).
First, note that I am not a member of Friends of the Bridge.
Second, opposition to the proposed suicide barrier on the Cold Spring Canyon Bridge is not growing because of confusion over financial issues—$3.2 million spent on the barrier is $3.2 million less that can be spent elsewhere, no matter how Caltrans chooses to parse the budget.
Instead, opposition to the barrier is growing because the public is beginning to learn that, despite the claims of Caltrans and the Glendon Association, there is actually no scientific evidence that suicide barriers on bridges save lives. In more than 30 years of research, not one study has been able to rule out the possibility that suicide barriers simply lead people to go somewhere else to commit suicide.
Further, Gary Spielmann, an expert on suicide prevention on bridges, submitted testimony to Caltrans, stating “suicide prevention barriers are an inferior solution to the problem of suicide on bridges. A ‘human barrier’ will outperform any physical barrier and save more lives.” Despite this, Caltrans has rejected just such a “human barriers” proposal in favor of a physical barrier.
Thus, a significant portion of the public opposition to the proposed suicide barrier on the Cold Spring Canyon Bridge has emerged because Caltrans has misrepresented the scientific evidence and ignored expert testimony in their push to spend $3.2 million in highway safety money on this project.
This article appears in Jul 3-10, 2008.
