Another Bridge Jump

She was obviously disabled, so no, had there been a barrier she wouldn't have been able to jump. She would just find another way though. It'll deter people, it won't prevent the eventual suicide.

Nope, something like 94% of suicidal people found on the Golden Gate Bridge and stopped from jumping do *not* go on to commit suicide.

All that proves is that 94% of people threatening to jump from the Golden Gate Bridge are just looking for attention.

Actually, Nick, we contend the money for the barrier should be spent on its original purpose, which was highway safety. That is an option for Caltrans.

Caught another mistake. Not all of the money for the barrier is Caltrans money. $1.5 million is Federal stimulus money given to the county that could be spent on any "shovel ready" project.

there is no way to prevent a person who wants to end his or her life from doing that.

I grew up in Pasadena. "Suicide Bridge" is the most beautiful bridge.

they put all these things on there when they rebuilt this beautiful bridge ....(it is a gorgeous bridge that is a landmark)

People still find a way . Leave the bridge alone. If someone wants to kill himself or herself......he or she will find a way.

Pills; carbon monoxide. something. I disagree with the changing of the bridge.

SUICIDE IS NOT INEVITABLE.

- Depression is a serious illness that results in irrational, impulsive behavior in the short term. Suicide attempts are often immediately precipitated by stressful life events.
- More than 92% of those who are prevented from committing suicide – by any means – DO NOT go on to kill themselves.
- Construction of a bridge barrier at one location DOES NOT result in an increased rate of jumping at other nearby locations, or an increase in suicides by other means.
- Even if a thwarted jumper did attempt suicide by other means, s/he would have an 88% chance of surviving. A jump from Cold Spring Bridge is always fatal.

DEATHS AT COLD SPRING BRIDGE ARE EXPENSIVE FOR TAXPAYERS.

- Intervention and recovery operations cost thousands of dollars per incident.
- These preventable deaths cost the state *millions* of dollars in lost revenue. Suicide victims are also California taxpayers; assuming a retirement age of 65, those who died at the bridge between 1998 and 2008 had an average of 23 years of working life remaining (383 years in total).

IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT THE VICTIMS.

Suicides at this location impose substantial risks on law enforcement, search and rescue, traffic management, and emergency personnel, including:
- dangers associated with crossing the bridge on foot in the absence of a safety barrier
- dangers associated with providing traffic control at the bridge during prevention and recovery operations
- increased risk associated with approaching suicidal individuals whose behavior is unpredictable
- posttraumatic stress associated with failure to prevent suicides as well as recovery of victims
- physical hazards encountered when locating and recovering bodies from the steep and heavily wooded terrain below the bridge
These risks are preventable by the installation of a physical barrier, and are therefore entirely unnecessary.

Help make the bridge safer for everyone.

Get the facts. Stop the tragedy at Cold Spring Bridge. Support the barrier.
http://www.stopthetragedy.org/
---------------------------------------------
[Comments by StoptheTragedy are posted by the administrator of the website www.stopthetragedy.org, who does not post comments on this forum under any other user name or alias.]

I think that we should make the train tracks safer... and the Wilcox Preserve and let's not forget that the top of all tall buildings and parking structures downtown also pose a risk for jumpers, like the one that jumped recently off the Granada parking garage... he was just a baby. The train tracks are probably THE most dangerous... how many deaths by train this year folks? Suicide & accidental... and yet the folks who are freaking out about the bridge don't have a thing to say about the trian deaths. Don't you think it costs a lot of money? The conductor is traumatized because they see it coming and can't prevent it... the people on the train are delayed and made late for wherever they are going, some on their way to work, some on their way to meet up with a connection that the delay makes them miss and is costly, others are traumatized... trains are FAR more deadly to people than the bridge is. Bridges don't kill people, people kill themselves. I suppose same goes for trains ...

Now what baffles me about the latest jumper is that she was clearly disabled and it sounds like she had to go through a huge effort to jump. How could nobody have seen that? How could nobody have stopped her? Did anyone even try? People pretty much ALWAYS see the jumper off the bridge, it is a well traveled road. That kind of freaks me out....

The article states that there have been 37 suicides this year, 5 from the bridge... that's 32, that we know of, that chose other ways to do it. Keep in mind that there are probably several people who OD'd on drugs and aren't being counted because it is hard to know if they OD'd intentionally or accidentally. Oh I suppose that some it would be obvious. What about them? Get off the bridge, start a suicide prevention group locally... because the tragedy has NOTHING to do with a bridge and all to do with people.

Perhaps train tracks don't get the same attention as the bridge because those who choose that way to kill themselves seem to usually be homeless people. I hope that's not the reason.

I agree, many people will find another way if thwarted. But some won't.... It's not such a simple issue.

To Kratatoa:
#1 -CalTrans funding for highway safety is for public safety. Suicide is a public safety and health issue. It is an epidemic. When it is an issue that saves lives, it is necessary and justified.
#2- $1.5 million is well below what is needed to even justify building a barrier. The Department of Transportation uses $5.7 million per person while the EPA uses $6.7 million per person when evaluating cost justification of any project.
#3 - these people are not looking for attention and to make that statement simply shows your lack of awareness about mental diseases and disorders, and suicide in general. The people removed from the bridge are taken on an involuntary hold (5150) for 72 hours. Do you know why 72 hours? Because that is sometimes how long it take for a suicidal impulse to pass; for the person to talk their issues out with a therapist, or to get on or back on their medications that control their thoughts.

Why don't you read California's Office of Suicide Prevention Executive Summary - "Every Californian is Part of the Solution" - that includes you !

GET THE FACTS about suicide, about prevention, about awareness. LEARN what the myths are and how to stop perpetuating them! BE PREPARED because you will never know when someone you love comes to you and says, I hate my life, I hate myself, I'm hearing voices, I wish I could end it all, etc. That is NOT looking attention, it is cry for help and you may hear it only once.

Be ready, Kratatoa! Please!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Penelope:
Firearms restrictions are necessary to prevent children from shooting themselves accidently and also to keep people from impulsive actions - suicide and murder. This is called "means restriction".
The bridge is a loaded gun in your backyard.
It is 100% lethal.

Overdosing and other means are often less lethal and gives the victim a chance to consider their actions and even call for help. Many people are found and saved in time and a very few (<5%) end up by dying by suicide.
~~~~~~~~~
To SantaBarbaraSand -
Why would it freak you out that no one stopped to prevent this woman from jumping? People are not concerned enough to take personal action to prevent suicides.

Society as a whole is incredibly apathetic and it shows in these postings. To continue to think that people threaten suicide for "attention" is just a sand on the beach of apathy. People's ignorance of the causes of suicide, trying to distance themselves from the 'unpleasantness' of life, "not in my backyard' attitudes, "not with my tax money" attitude doesn't leave much room for our 'civilized society' to protect the citizens that need it most, when they need it the most. That is who we are responsible for as a whole, not as individuals.

Could any of you walk down into that canyon to pick up the pieces and take those pieces back to the families and tell them their loved ones would have done it anyways? You are more callous than I.

Total fatalities at Cold Spring Arch Bridge, 2000 to 2009: 19

Total rail fatalities in all of Santa Barbara County, 2000 to 2009: 18
[Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis]

Cold Spring Bridge is a single location that has served as a consistent and predictable site of fatalities in Santa Barbara County for 47 years.

Loss of life is tragic, wherever it happens. The barrier offers a chance to prevent it.

Get the facts. Stop the tragedy at Cold Spring Bridge. Support the barrier.
http://www.stopthetragedy.org/
---------------------------------------------
[Comments by StoptheTragedy are posted by the administrator of the website www.stopthetragedy.org, who does not post comments on this forum under any other user name or alias.]

Call me callous or just practical, but I'm not sure what the big issue is here. Suicide is a sad thing, but considering the rash of suicide-homicides in the past few years... I think someone that takes themselves out in a manner that doesn't harm or overly inconvenience anyone else in the process is fairly considerate. If they were nice enough to leave a note as to why, that's even better to help clear up any questions anyone has.

A barrier is just a silly waste of money. With the current situation of state and municipal budgets....can we really afford yet another expensive boondoggle?

We talk about all the money spent to recover the body... why recover it if it's just in a wooded area that no one goes to? Make the family foot the bill for recovery if the body is to be recovered.

Create more suicide help programs that people can call into for their loved ones to try to stop it.

Lets be smart, and that means not just running to spend more money that we don't have.

-kieran

Boondockmom:

#1 - Caltrans funding is for *highway* safety, not suicide prevention. In fact, the California Transportation Commission withdrew their safety money for the barrier because it was an inappropriate use of highway safety funds. That's why Caltrans had to "borrow" $1.5 million from the county to finish this boondoggle.
#2- The cost justification for the project only works if barriers save lives, and there's no proof that they do.
#3 - If it really takes 72 hours for a suicidal impulse to pass, then a barrier won't help anyone, since people could easily find another place to jump within those 3 days.

I have the facts. All you have are Glendon Association talking points.

I'm going to repost a question I posted on EdHat. I would like the pro-barrier drones to stop with the cutting and pasting of talking points for a minute and try to answer this.

Can any barrier supporter explain the logic behind assuming the barrier will save a person 10 years from now? Tell me the story of how it would work.

Follow up question. Are there suicidal people wandering around in New York right now planning to jump from the World Trade Center?

Kratatoa.... or how about the Granada parking garage? Or the courthouse tower? Or Shoreline? Wilcox Property... etc etc.

I wish I had time to have a cause like the "fact" pasters up above... but I don't. Every few months I get up San Marcos Pass though and that view when you first get on the bridge takes me to a special place that helps to relieve my stress. Dad's favorite view and having just lost him last year, I would hate to also lose that view.

Hey all you statistics people: Is there something about SB that attracts this person, or, is there something about SB that creates this person? [The ones who want to jump off a high bridge]

Kratatoa,

I not know the Glendon Association nor do I cut and paste.

CalTrans Bridge engineering guidelines require that high fencing with inward curved tops be placed on bridges where objects may be thrown from OR if people might climb over a lower railing. That is SAFETY and it is on a HIGHWAY.

If you have the facts then you must know of the multitude of research studies that show when barriers are placed on bridges they stops the suicides at those locations and they do not increase elsewhere.

Google "5150" and see why these people are removed and force into observation. The fact that you tease others' words to your benefit and still miss the mark about suicidal ideation and intervention and prevention shows that you are pursuing propaganda and NOT the FACTS that you state you have.

You "have the facts" so you know studies have shown that people do go on to live full lives after suicide attempts. You may even know people who have attempted suicide and lived. There are people who have tried to burn themselves to death or shot themselves in the head or chest and survived to live another 30 + years. Why didn't they try again when they didn't succeed? Because they got the help they needed. Because they know how important life is and they want to stay alive even with their horrible disfigurements.
Ask any professional in the field, any psychiatrist, LSCW, MFT, anyone who has worked in psychiatric hospitals who have seen these people come in after seriously attempting suicide, stopped and get the professional help they need.

As for jumping off the World Trade Center. Pretty sick of you to mention that considering the suicide planes that killed thousands in the twin towers of that center.

Aren't you (with all the facts) aware that tall buildings have limited roof access? The doors are locked and only workers and maintenance staff have keys. Why that would be a SAFETY measure! Go figure! When people are allowed on roofs, like the Empire State Building, they have preventative measure so people don't jump.

Dear SantaBarbaraSand - I am sorry for the loss of your father. I too enjoy the beautiful views from the mountain ranges to the ocean. But that is why there is the Vista Point at the bridge. So people can stop, breath the fresh air, enjoy the panoramas of the area. But even when I drive by chainlink fencing, the view is not completely obscured, textures and colors are still present and it would last only a few seconds.

And when did views become more important that helping people when they need it the most?

Micaelm - many people who jump have serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrneia or bipolar disorder. Some just come there because they know it is incredibly lethal. And they don't get a second chance to reconsider their actions after they jump. There isn't an emergency call box half down to the rocks below.

BoondockMom, all those safety regulations you mention are to protect people on the ground, not the suicidal. The state has no legal obligation to protect people deliberately seeking self-harm (a lawsuit against the Golden Gate Bridge by the family of a suicide jumper was thrown out because the jumper "did not use the property with due care for the purposes it was designed."

As far as what the research on suicide barriers actually says, get the facts:

http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/glasg...

By the way, I'm still waiting for a barrier supporter to answer my question about how a barrier would save lives 10 years from now. Calling it "sick" isn't really an answer ...

Thanks, Kratatoa,

Most people know that the group, "Friend of the Bridge" , use Prof Glasgow's paper as justification for no barriers. And when you talk about wasting money - how much will CalTrans have to spend against the lawsuit that "Friends" has filed? Hmm..?

But Prof Glasgow does agree with the barriers.
Of course you know that already, right?

Look at his letter to a bridge district last year. He wrote :
"B. Another interpretation of the purpose of the project as stated is that it is meant to simply to keep suicidal people from using the Golden Gate Bridge as their means to
suicide…However, if the goal of the project is narrowly defined as preventing suicide at a particular location (the Golden Gate Bridge), the physical suicide deterrent system is likely to work."

So here Prof Glasgow actually agrees that barriers save lives in association with specific locations, which is what is wanted at Cold Springs Canyon Bridge.

~He also wrote:
"Section S3 and pg. 1-5, Purpose and Need. The purpose of the proposed project as stated is ambiguous. For instance, Section S3 states “[t]he purpose of the proposed
project is to consider a physical suicide deterrent system on the Bridge that reduces the number of injuries and deaths associated with individuals jumping off the Bridge.” As stated, the ultimate goal of the project is unclear – is it designed to save the lives of suicidal people, or simply to keep suicidal people off of the Golden Gate Bridge? "

What part of "deaths associated with individuals jumping off the Bridge" is unclear?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He further wrote:
In more than 30 years of research, not one study has found evidence that suicide barriers save lives. In sum, there is no scientific evidence that suicide barriers on bridges save lives.

The rebuttal paper is:
http://ggbsuicidebarrier.org/docs/Attach...

I also have to disagree.
Please go to: http://goldengatebridge.org/projects/doc...
On pages 14-27 you can read 22 research studies from around the world on the subject of suicides and barriers on bridges. These are from researchers from US, Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, Turkey, Switzerland, Sweden and New Zealand.
These show that suicide is impulsive, restricting means saves lives, substitution does not always occur and that buying time saves lives, that barriers work.

Every time I drive over that bridge I get a clutch in my heart. I think about my ex who shot himself a few miles down the hill from there in '05.

I think about an acquaintances brother who jumped from the Cold Springs bridge that same year and how that act changed her life forever.

I think about the despair that drives a person to commit suicide, the sense of complete loss of hope, and I think about the deep piranha-like gnawing pain of loss that the families are left to live with for the rest of their lives.

I wonder what I would do if I saw someone ready to jump off the bridge, and how many folks like Krakatoa, Kieran, and others would be honking and swearing about how inconvenient a traffic delay on the bridge would be to their precious lives while some poor soul is considering throwing their own life away.

It saddens me that we argue about aesthetics and the bottom line while the value of human life is marked down like broken and unwanted trinkets on the bargain shelf at Ross.

Opponents have obviously never lost a loved one to suicide and I challenge those of you to prove otherwise. People who have felt this loss understand that while the act of suicide itself still makes little sense to those left behind, the pain we feel forever after teaches a person a level of grace and compassion lacking in these callous and biting forum remarks.

Boondockmom, preventing suicides at a particular location is not the same thing as saving lives. If you stop someone from jumping off the bridge, and they go on to kill themselves somewhere else, you really haven't saved their life. Caltrans is fine with that, but most of the rest of us would rather spend our safety money to save people.

As far as the rebuttal letter you linked, you should take a look at this:

http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/glasg...

Ya wanna jump? How bout the rock or the chair ? Coyotes love, the manna from heaven.

Glasgow strikes again... he misses the whole point in the letter linked above. He either knows and won't say or is ignorant of the fact that the type of study he wants can never be done. Either way his pants are down and his zener is in a pork pie.

Yes, if pigs could fly, everyone could sit at their home and wait for free bacon on the table. Ain't gonna happen, and Glasgow is asking for a similar impossibility.

Meanwhile the Seiden study is powerful evidence that some people will be saved by a barrier. Naturally, Glasgow doesn't the Seiden study in his link, and never has discussed the portions of Seiden that are convincing to the huge majority of the scientific community.

And Glagow's advanced degrees in *STATISTICS*, not social science, are from, where exactly? OOPS, HE HAS NO ADVANCED DEGREES IN STATISTICS. Just advanced degrees in debating.

Per his vita and website:

Glasgow has a PhD in social sciences from Caltech, a program well known for their work in social science statistics. He also worked as a post-doc at Harvard doing epidemiological statistical work for the World Health Organization. He's now a tenured professor at UCSB, teaching statistics and research design to social science students. He also teaches statistics in the UK.

You on the other hand are an anonymous froot loop on the internet.

I wonder who I should believe?

Well, we're both fruit loops on the internet.

But the simple fact remains: Garrett Glasgow has no advanced degrees in statistics.

No doubt the best volleyball player in the world knows something about playing basketball. But the insights about basketball you'll get more information from a top basketball player.

Glasgow is simply not tenured for statistics, and has no advanced degrees in the topic. His work actually shows his ignorance... he didn't teach statistics to advanced graduate students *in statistics*. Just other debaters like himself.

Glasgow himself never hesitates to downgrade other people if he perceives they don't have credentials that impress him. Fair is fair... he deserves the same scrutiny. By his own criteria, he is not qualified to evaluate and judge statistical arguments, just poli sci debating strategies.

The Caltech "social science" degree is actually a statistics and game theory degree. This is well known among people who do social science research.

Political science is about social science research, not debating. Again, anyone with even basic familiarity with the social sciences knows this.

Glasgow does teach statistics to statistics students. He used to be the chair of an interdisciplinary statistical group at UCSB that offers courses to statistics as well as social science students. His courses in the UK also include statistics students, and students from the statistics department at UCSB have gone to the political science department to take his classes.

Not that any of this is relevant.

You might be wondering why sevendolphins has such a Glasgow obsession. I did too, so I did a Google search and found this:

http://blogabarbara.blogspot.com/2007/11...

Glasgow catches sevendolphins pretending to be 2 different people, and also pretending to have a PhD in statistics from Stanford. Total sevendolphins humiliation ensues.

sevendolphins apparently never got over it, and here we are, 2 years later, with sevendolphins still trying to get even with a guy that hasn't posted on this site in more than a year.

It's kid of sad, really.

But mostly funny.

sevendolphins, you big obsessive nut, we love ya! Your restraining order is in the mail!

Garrett Glasgow referred me to that blog long ago. You mischaracterize the interchange; Glasgow was referring to another poster, not me.

It's painfully obvious from reading that the "other poster" is you. You post the same phrases over and over -- there, here, and on EdHat.

So, how long have you had your imaginary PhD in statistics from Stanford?

I don't have a PhD in Statistics from Stanford, and have never claimed to have one. Garrett Glasgow, however, made a significant mistake in his study of overall suicide rates and bridges...

http://mikekr.blogspot.com/2007/11/bad-g...

Doubtful he'd make such basic mistakes if he had a bonafide advanced degree in statistics.

I hope you didn't post that to try to prove to me you're not obsessed with Glasgow.

By the way, the "mistake" you linked wasn't a mistake, but a graph formatted in a way a blogger didn't like. Glasgow was nice enough to make a new one for him, and that blogger wrote:

"UPDATE: In the comments, Glasgow provides a link to an improved graph that does not have the problems noted here, but supports the point of his article."

So Glasgow was right all long, and his critic admitted it.

But enough about that. Let's talk about sme of the other silly things your Glasgow derangement syndrome made you say.

In that blogabarbara thread you claim to have "spent some time" at Caltech, and even claimed to be a friend of Feynman. Do you now retract that statement?

According to Glasgow concerning his error...

`I can see now it makes it look like I'm trying to "stack the deck."'

Uh... did he ever correct his error with Caltrans or with local people with the same words? Not that I'm aware of. His correlation significantly changed due to the correction. It is actually quite a big deal, but, given that he is a debater and not a true scholar of statistics, it would not be surprising for him to neglect correcting his error in this community.

BTW, can you refer me to the published version of his work?

I claimed nothing like that on blogabarbara.

That blog post actually said the results stayed the same. You just made up that part about the correlation changing because you are getting desperate.

But back on topic:

So, now you are trying to claim the "PhD in statistics" isn't you, even though he repeats your description of the Seiden study nearly word for word? You also both misuse the statistical term "sensitivity" in exactly the same way. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

Everywhere you look, you see patterns, K, and they are just figments of your anxious mind.

Maybe Caltrans taps your phone and has GPS tracking in your socks and car. Ever notice that your cellphone drops out at odd times?

But back on topic:

Of course, why would Glasgow post on the internet about his error,

``I can see now it makes it look like I'm trying to "stack the deck."'

...hmmm, but he didn't say that to the local community. Why not? Oh, the local community has found oddities in his work too.

Only 10 minutes for a response? Hovering around your computer and getting nervous, I see. You know you're busted.

You're desperately trying to change the subject, but I'm not letting you off the hook. With your "I have a PhD in statistics" and "I knew Richard Feynman" claims you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will tell any lie you think you need to to "win" an argument.

Trying to deny that it's you makes you look even worse. You and the "PhD" say *exactly* the same things about *exactly* the same topics. You even make *exactly* the same mistakes when you crib notes from Wikipedia. You're also Winbills on EdHat, which is obvious for the same reasons.

Caught red-handed in a ridiculous lie. How embarrassing for you.

I deny I've ever made the claims you list. You're feeling a bit paranoid today, K, take your meds and sleep it off.

I knew you would deny it. That makes it even funnier. It's *obvious* that you, Winbills, and "the PhD" are the same person. There's absolutely no point in trying to lie about it.

In fact, your pathological need to deny the obvious if you find it uncomfortable explains your bizarre hostility towards Glasgow. Rather than admit he's right, you launch increasingly desperate attacks against him, hoping to drown out the nagging voice in your head.

Well, at least you're not violent.

Are you?

Hope you mellowed out after a rest, K.

I don't hear voices in my head.

Your main point above is that you refuse to focus on the actual issues that involve the Cold Spring Bridge barrier itself. Once again, Glasgow made a significant mistake, and for that I harbor no ill will toward him, as we all make mistakes. I certainly laud him for trying, and for concluding that he couldn't find evidence that the total suicide rate is positively correlated with *the number of bridges per unit population* (that normalizing of the horizontal to per unit population was not a mere reformatting, as you claim).

I just think his limit on the correlation is so weak it is irrelevant. I'm by no means the only one who has concluded that. Perhaps you see that comment in several places because several independent people have reached that conclusion.

Sure, I repeat this stuff. That's because I always want to bring the conversation back to something that actually involves the bridge barrier issue, and not irrelevant nyah-nyah-nyah speculation involving words like hostility, desparate attacks, etc.

Well, I guess if you have an imaginary PhD in statistics from Stanford you're allowed to comment on imaginary mistakes in other people's work.

And everyone knows the "several independent people" are actually all your various accounts. You've been busted multiple times by multiple people. Denying it only makes you look even crazier.

FYI, I'm going to link to this and the blogabarbara discussion every time you go off on another rant accusing other people of dishonest behavior.

I don't have multiple accounts. I posted at blogabarbara a few times after Garrett Glasgow directed me there. I've never claimed to have a Ph. D. from anywhere in anything. I've not been busted by anybody.

What's funny is your overreaction to your own false accusations.

The shortcomings in Glasgow's research have been noted by many people, including Lisa Firestone of the Glendon Foundation, and also professors at UCSF. Lots of people have read their analyses.

Garrett Glasgow himself wrote about his original study, and I quote,

``I can see now it makes it look like I'm trying to "stack the deck."'

Why doesn't he mention that to the local community?

Also, it does not appear to me that Glasgow has ever published his study. K, why not get off your personal vendetta, and just tell us all where we can read Glasgow's article in a peer-reviewed journal?

You're been obsessing over Glasgow behind his back for TWO YEARS, and you think *I* should get off my personal vendetta?

Completely busted, with your fake PhD and your multiple accounts. How embarrassing for you.

By the way, your hero Firestone is so afraid of Glasgow she chickened out of a debate with him last year.

See you later, "Dr." sevensnugwinbills.

Where is Prof. Glasgow's study, available on his website as:

http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/glasg...

published in a peer-reviewed journal?

His trendline in the original paper showed a decrease from about 13 deaths/100,000 to about 8 deaths/100,000, for a net decrease of -5 deaths/100,000.

His corrected graph shows a net decrease of only -1 deaths/100,000.

That is a very significant change between the original and the corrected.

For comparison, the entire bridge jumping death rate in SB County is about 0.3/100,000. In remaking his plot, Glasgow's result changed by roughly 13 times that value. And that is the point... his study was way to insensitive to weigh in in any useful way on bridge suicides.

It's funny how you barrier supporters are so terrified of Glasgow. Lisa Firestone practically crapped her pants when the Pacifica Graduate Institute tried to set up a debate between her and Glasgow.

Only Joni Kelly from the Glendon Association was there in the audience when Glasgow presented, and Glasgow completely humiliated her when she asked her sevendolphins questions. I was there, and I really enjoyed my ringside seat to the complete discrediting of the pro-barrier pseudo-scientists. No wonder you guys only feel comfortable taking him on with anonymous internet accounts.

You're also completely terrified. If you want to know where Glasgow's work is published, why don't you just ask him? Are you really that scared?

Two years later, and you still can't stop thinking about the guy. I guess getting busted with a fake PhD is more humiliating that I can imagine.

See you later, "Dr." sevensnugwinbills.

Uh... why would your inability to answer simple questions scare me?

At least Seiden's work is published in a peer-reviewed journal. If Glasgow's work is so great, why don't you just give me its journal reference?

By the way, in your latest flailing attempt to get even with Glasgow for humiliating you confused correlations with changes in the value of the dependent variable. Rescaling a variable from raw number to rates per 100,000 will change the effect that a 1 unit change in that variable will have on the dependent variable, even if the correlation remains unchanged. And as the blog you linked said, the underlying correlation remained basically unchanged even after the rescale the blogger wanted to see. But you already knew that since you have a "PhD" in statistics, right?

Damn, "Dr." sevensnugbills, you've got a bad case of Glasgow Derangement Syndrome. It is completely obvious that you pretend to be different people, and you pretended to have a PhD in statistics from Stanford. Denying it only makes you look even more psychotic.

See you later, "Dr." sevensnugbills.

Then why did Glasgow himself say....

``I can see now it makes it look like I'm trying to "stack the deck."'

Using total number of bridges as the independent variable was just plain wrong. Strangely enough, he never gives the pertinent coefficient (with errors) for his original graph in...

http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/glasg...

Instead of your usual claims about multiple identities and derangements, why not just get the coefficient (with errors) from Glasgow?

He gives a coefficient in the updated graph, but it is impossible to compare with the original one.

And how about just providing the journal reference for Glasgow's article, instead of making false claims about me having a Ph.D.?

Nobody is following this except you and I at this point, but if they ever go back and look at this thread, they'll realize you never provide hard data or journal references. Just sizzle and froth.

Hot damn, my scroll wheel is smoking!

Two years later, and you still can't stop thinking about Glasgow. I guess when he busted you with multiple accounts and a fake PhD it was a life-changing experience for you.

From now on you will be known as Dr. sevensnugbills. It doesn't cover all of your accounts, but we can't make your nickname too long.

See you later, Dr. sevensnugbills.

How about just answering where Garrett Glasgow has published his paper, or, why he said the draft he widely circulated (and has posted on his webpage) tried to `stack the deck?'

The obsession here is yours, K, an obsession with evasion.

Actually he said he could understand why people might *think* a graph in that report was trying to stack the deck. He corrected that misperception.

You're not really good at the whole "reading comprehension" thing, are you?

And if you want to know where is work is published, why don't you just ask him? Is it because you're afraid he'll humiliate you again, just like he humiliated Lisa Firestone and Joni Kelly?

You've been obsessed with Glasgow for TWO YEARS now, all because he caught you pretending to be different people with multiple accounts and lying about having a PhD in statistics from Stanford. That strikes me as a bit unhealthy.

See you later, Dr. sevensnugbills.

No, not *think*, *look*.

Garrett Glasgow has humiliated no-one... you are obsessed with weird theoretical humiliations which only exist in your own mind, but not in fact.

I care less than a rat's A about Glasgow the person. Had he not written a report which appears not to have ever been published (sure, I'll e-mail him), I'd not care at all.

But you simply won't answer a simple question: where has his report been published?

OK... e-mailed him at 12:18pm on 10/19/2009...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings Professor Glasgow,

I'm interested in citing a report on your website, entitled

`Would a Suicide Prevention Barrier on the Cold Spring Bridge
Save Lives? A Review of the Evidence.'

http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/glasg...

How best should I cite that report? In particular, has the
work been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and published?

thank you and with best regards, sevendolphins
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Sevensnugbills, did you go to UCSB to talk to Dr. Glasgow today?

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/oct...

I don't cross dress.

2 days later... no reply from Prof. Glasgow on where his report is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

You mean he didn't drop everything to answer an anonymous demand from a demented internet stalker?!? No way!!!

Hello: I'm sevensnugbill's brother. I just wanted you to know that sevensnugbills has passed away. He went swimming in Lake Cachuma two weeks ago (which is illegal) and he was severely injured when attacked by a group of wild ducks. The injury happened after he swam to shore and was mistaken for Bigfoot by a camper and was attacked by the camper who grabbed an empty bottle of Mr. Pibb and whacked him on the head. The ducks then flew in and finished off my brother.

We mourn the loss of my brother, and ask Kratatoa to please afford us the dignity of not adding to our grief, at least until we settle the matter of his will and testament. Thank you.

I call his bicycle!

What do you call his bicycle? Or do you mean you call his bicycle on the phone? I'm confused.

Whether or not I post under different screen names, and regardless of who you think I might be, what it comes down to is not whether the number of people who feel one way on a given subject outnumber the opposition, nor the number of aliases used, but the validity of the point being made.

Futhermore, you can see that I survived the duck attack so I guess the bills of the ducks weren't snug enough to kill me.

I'm confused too. What's a dolphin going to do with a bicycle anyway? I should have just left it there so people might have a better chance to escape the ducks.

So, we're talking about sea creatures and bicycles. This reminds me of the bumper sticker that was in vogue a few decades ago

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"

Ha! Tell that to poor sevendolphins, may he rest in peace.

Sevendolphins also survived the duck attack. He's resting down at Sea World and there is word that he may be starring in a movie called Flipper Goes To College, or the alternate title "Graduating from the School Of Dolphins".

Nice try. We all know you and sevendolphins are the same dolphin. You're also dead, so I guess you're some kind of internet ghost dolphin.

OK, so you "outed" me. But I would advise you that since I'm dead, and still blogging, that the adage "You can kill me but you can't get rid of me" applies in this case.

You and your vicious nasty little ducks may have killed sevendolphins and I, but you can't get rid of us. Actually, some fois gras would be rather tasty right about now. I think Elmer Fudd and I are going to go duck hunting.