Pixel Tracker

Tuesday, December 18 , 2018, 4:17 am | Fair 48º

 
 
 

Letter to the Editor: Scientific Study Supports Claims Against Suicide Barriers

Strong public opposition over the past three years to the $4 million Caltrans proposal to erect fencing barriers nearly 10 feet tall on the Cold Spring Bridge has been based in large part on the widely shared conclusion that such barriers, in and of themselves, merely divert suicidal individuals to take their lives elsewhere in the community. Earlier this week, a study published in the prestigious British Medical Journal provided convincing scientific evidence to support this conclusion. (Click here to view the study.)

Opponents of the Caltrans fencing barriers plan believe that human intervention is the crucial element in preventing suicidal behavior rather than merely diverting it to other places, and they contend that a superior alternative is a “human barriers” plan designed by a leading suicide prevention expert that has been in place on five bridges in New York for more than two years.

According to Friends of the Bridge, Caltans has failed to give adequate consideration to this alternative and has failed in other respects to meet fundamental legal requirements before approving the tall fencing barriers plan. A ruling by the Santa Barbara Superior Court is expected Tuesday, July 13 in the ensuing litigation over the issues.

The scientific evidence is set forth in an article published in the July 6 online edition of the British Medical Journal, and its findings and conclusions closely parallel the findings and conclusions of UCSB professor Garrett Glasgow in reports filed earlier with Caltrans. The authors of the study concluded that fencing barriers installed on a Toronto bridge from which nine or 10 people jumped each year, on average, did not result in a decrease in the suicide rate in the community as a whole. The bridge had previously been second only to the Golden Gate Bridge in the annual number of suicide jumps.

In an action that came as surprise to many, Caltrans chose to begin construction work before the court hearing scheduled for July 13. Petitioners in the case are asking the court to set aside the approval by Caltrans of the fencing barriers plan pending further review and analysis in conformity with the California Environmental Quality Act. Among the issues that may be the subject of such review is an alternative plan presented to Caltrans by the state historic preservation officer, an opponent of the tall fencing barriers proposal, and rejected by Caltrans without affording public review and comment.

Greg Mohr
Friends of the Cold Spring Bridge Steering Committee

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.