Friends of the Bridge Continue Their Fight

There are people who smoke cigarettes until they die at 115 years old in their sleep, showing no health problems due to smoking. Does that mean we should use those cases to argue that cigarettes are actually OK? The tobacco industry has argued that cigarettes are OK for years based on that argument... that the proof is not utterly complete that cigarettes are unhealthy.

The proof is not complete that barriers save every life, but the evidence is extremely strong that a lot of lives are saved by barriers. Garrett Glasgow continues to raise the same kind of objections that the tobacco industry raises about cigarettes... that there might be all kinds of reasons why some peoples lives are not saved by barriers.

But in the end we should all focus on the positives: there is no doubt that some lives will be saved by barriers.

Let's let Caltrans go forward with this terrific and important project.

Where does it end? Barriers at all potential suicide locations? Should we enclose the top of the court house tower? The bridge over 101 at hwy 154? Look around you today. There are MANY places for suicides to occur.

Cal Trans is just doing this to cover their backsides. They don't care that the fantastic panorama from hwy 154 will be altered and they don't care what it costs. It's not THEIR money.

Pedro Nava's support is a disappointment. I assume it's politically correct for him to support it regardless of it's lack of merit.

Use the millions for this wasteful project somewhere else...

But many suicides, and more importantly, many, many calls of distressed folks, originate from the Cold Spring bridge.

Way, way, way more than occur from the court house tower, the 154 bridge over the 101, etc.

pn2865, you sound like a tobacco lobbyist.

sevendolphins...your tobacco argument makes no sense to me.

We need outreach and mental health care, not 1 - 3 million dollars of highway safety money to "potentially" save lives. People will resort to whatever means they want if they wish to commit suicide. I'm sure all of us can find many ways to save more lives of people who do not want to kill themselves on our local highways with that kind of money. We can also install phones on bridges and see if outreach and human contact will save people who wish to die.

Dirtgirl.... the county mental health efforts already spend $40 million/year or so; the $1-3 million on the bridge will last for 30 years, so amounts to less than 1/400 the spending on county mental health. That seems like a good bargain to me.

People who want to commit suicide are not in a definite state of follow-through. Since just about everyone has a cell phone now, putting stickers with suicide help lines' phone numbers by the barrier would work great to get the human contact.

We already know that on the Golden Gate Bridge the `human outreach' of phones, cameras, and quick response has not eliminated a vast number of suicides.

A barrier will, the data is quite clear. Not every last one, and that is where the tobacco argument makes sense.

Lots of tobacco users think that they will be the lucky one that survives... I used to know someone who would point to Winston Churchill, who lived to 91 but smoked like a chimney. The tobacco industry exploited the doubt raised by cases like that to oppose restrictions.

Using the possibility of redirection and substitution is the same thinking with respect to barriers. Lives will definitely be saved by barriers on Cold Spring, and who cares about a perfect view when you are traveling at 55 mph. The lives are more important.

>>"Lives will definitely be saved by barriers on Cold Spring."

This is a false statement. Despite the claims of a handful of activists, nobody knows if suicide barriers save lives or not. Nearly every researcher and public health official who has studied the topic is in agreement on this point, as I explained on Monday night.

I've posted the slides from my presentation on Monday to my website:

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

Nearly everyone in the room understood what I was saying. Even Commander Palera from the Sheriff's Department agreed by the end of my presentation that there is no proof that barriers save lives (although he still argues in favor of a barrier for officer safety). The only person in the audience who didn't seem to understand this was Joni Kelley, the (unofficial) Glendon Association representative, who made a statement that demonstrated that she didn't understand the difference between preventing suicides at a particular location and saving lives.

Finally, a point of clarification: I am not a member of Friends of the Bridge, nor am I correctly classified as a "barrier opponent." My concern here is that Caltrans seems to be making a decision to spend a great deal of safety money based on a misunderstanding of the scientific evidence.

>>"Lives will definitely be saved by barriers on Cold Spring."

This is most definitely a true statement.

It may not be that *every* suicide will be prevented by a barrier. But 95% of distressed individuals who where found on the Golden Gate Bridge did not go on to commit suicide. More proof is in the Caltrans EIR for the Cold Spring barrier.

Garrett Glasgow consistently overstates his case; he has done a statistical study that had insufficient sensitivity to prove anything; it was a good idea that failed in practice.

Otherwise, he is a bit like the tobacco lobbyists who tried to create an atmosphere of doubt about the dangers of smoking. He creates an atmosphere of doubt about barriers, and he is right in one sense: there never has been and never will be an airtight case in favor of barriers.

Just like cigarettes: any given individual might be like Winston Churchill and suffer no ill effects from smoking. A tiny fraction of the population can use heroin with no ill effects.

But the bulk of the evidence strongly supports the assertion that lives will be saved by a barrier on Cold Spring Bridge.

The opposition to the Caltrans bridge barriers boondoggle is widespread and increasing as the public finds out what elected officials such as Pedro Nava, Brooks Firestone, Salud Carbajal, and Janet Wolf are trying like mad to conceal.

My fight? Hardly. I am merely a spokesperson for Friends of the Bridge.

This story should have reported the fact that the following community organizations also oppose the barriers boondoggle:
Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association
Santa Barbara County Action Network
Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation, Los Padres Chapter of the Sierra Club
Womens Environmental Watch
Citizens Planning Association South County Land Use Committee
Santa Ynez Valley Alliance
Pearl Chase Society
Los Padres ForestWatch

In the weeks and months to come several other civic groups can be expected to join the fight against this blatantly flawed and wasteful proposal. This issue will not be decided finally until well past the November election when Caltrans hopes to see Measure A approved so that it and its elected lobby will have hundreds upon hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars to do with what they please in years to come.

It seems that Caltrans, Nava, Firestone, Carbajal, and Wolfe take their constituents for fools. Friends of the Bridge does not, and so we and other civic organizations will not give up this fight.

It is truly a shame that Caltrans, Nava, Firestone, Carbajal and Wolfe will not even allow a fair public hearing to consider the merits of the far less costly and more effective suicide prevention plan that was presented to Caltrans months ago. Unlike the barriers boondoggle, the alternative no-barriers plan was designed by a qualified expert in the field of suicide prevention on bridges.

For facts about the alternative plan and about all other aspects of this issue please go to www.cscbfriends.com

And then make the fight against the barriers boondoggle your fight too.

Sevendolphins says "Garrett Glasgow consistently overstates his case; he has done a statistical study that had insufficient sensitivity to prove anything; it was a good idea that failed in practice."

I'm even more confused. From what I got out of Monday's presentation, Garrett hasn't done any statistical studies but presented facts from other scientists' previous research. In the scientific community it would be considered a review, not a study.

If there isn't an airtight case in favor in barriers, why let caltrans spend millions of our money?

SAVE THE BRIDGE!

Hi dirtgirl,

You're right that on Monday all I did was a review of previous research.

However, I have in fact done some statistical analysis of my own to try to determine if barriers save lives. My work used a superior statistical approach in comparison to earlier research, and other researchers are also starting to adopt this approach (the Reisch et al. 2007 study I talked about on Monday uses the same approach I used in my work). Unfortunately, like every researcher before me, my results were inconclusive.

Like many barrier supporters, Sevendolphins is simply confused about what the scientific literature on the topic actually says. As we saw on Monday night, some barrier supporters are even confused about the most elementary point in the debate -- the difference between preventing suicides at a particular location and saving lives.

As another example of this confusion, check out the Glendon Association website. They list many of the studies I talked about on Monday -- under the heading "There Is No Debate: Barriers Save Lives." It's a perfect example of the jarring disconnect between the scientific research and activist interpretation of that research.

I agree with Garrett Glasgow that Friends of the Bridge is a perfect example of the jarring disconnect between scientific research and their activist interpretations.

There will never be proof at the level that Glasgow wants. There will always be uncertainty. dirtgirl, your argument has always been used by foes of safety, from the smoking industry through the nuclear power industry and including the chemical industry.

They say: why take protective measures unless the case is airtight that they will be effective?

But the conservative choice and the life-saving choice here is to build the barrier. Some lives will be saved, although perhaps not every suicide stopped at the bridge will result in a saved live.

Caltrans and the Glendon Association are shameless liars. It's all documented here:

http://www.cscbfriends.com/

Sorry sevendolphins, but your juvenile antics and willful ignorance aren't impressing anyone. The truth has finally come out, and nobody is buying what you're selling any more.

Thank you, EscapeTheCult.

Granted, I'm just another joe with an opinion, but opposing this project seems petty.

How much is life worth? Even a severely troubled life? Is the money, an impaired view, or the environmental impact worth more? I'm not positively sure, but it doesn't seem like it could be.

Dude, don't drink the Caltrans Kool-Aid.

This project isn't about saving lives. It's about taking $3.2 million in highway safety money that was supposed to be spent to protect us, and instead spending it to keep troubled people off a Caltrans bridge so their suicides will be someone else's problem.

Opposing this isn't petty.

I think this project is about saving lives.

Of 515 distressed folks found on the Golden Gate Bridge over the years, over 480 did not go on to commit suicide.

Over the past 8 years their have been 162 incidents where law enforcement has responded to suicidal individuals at the Cold Spring Bridge. Of course we should encourage folks to seek help without the implied threat of a jump, and a good barrier at Cold Spring is a step in the right direction.

The Eiffel Tower has suicide barriers. So does the Empire State Building.

If you care about life and helping distressed folks, you'll support the barrier.

If you jump off of the Eiffel Tower or the Empire State Building you will likely kill innocent people below you. Those buildings should have barriers on them since they are suicide hotspots where people who don't want to die will likely be killed.

The Golden Gate Bridge has no barriers, so your point is moot sevendolphins.

Put the highway money into highway projects that save lives of people who don't want to die. For instance, the widening of Highway 395 near Lone Pine from a 2 lane highway to a separated 4 lane highway. How about improvements at rest stops so weary travelers can sleep in their cars in some shade or get a cup of coffee?

Dr, Glasgow, sorry for my inaccuracy with your study!

But the 480 folks found in a distressed condition on the Golden Gate Bridge did not go on to commit suicide.

People who consider suicide and flirt with performing it are by no means always going to follow through. They are so distraught they don't check whether there is a barrier or not before heading to a spot like the Cold Spring Bridge or the Golden Gate.

So a barrier on the Cold Spring Bridge will definitely save lives. Maybe not every suicide that would have happened in absence of the barrier, but some lives will be saved.

Additionally, having Cold Spring be a site where 162 folks in 8 years go and threaten suicide is not good.

dirtgirl, your interpretation of what I was saying on Monday was exactly right. I didn't bother to talk about my own work because my results were the same as the published literature in the field.

I think we need to have a few more programs like we had on Monday night, where we had a rational, fact-based discussion about what to do with the Cold Spring Bridge. It's too bad the Glendon Association wasn't interested in participating. The only discussion they seem interested in is the one where they monotonously repeat the same handful of unproven assertions in anonymous comments on blogs.

Guerrilla street theater and comments like `Caltrans is the nanny state in drag' is hardly a rational, fact-based discussion. It is easy to see why serious organizations like Glendon don't want to discuss this issue with the anti-bridge folks, who look like they overuse controlled substances.

Pretty much all the criticisms Garrett Glasgow makes of Glendon apply equally well to him; he has monotonously repeated the same skepticisms, but has not provided a positive proof of anything. His own statistical study failed to provide any basis to make decisions on.

Seiden did publish his study of 515 folks found on the Golden Gate Bridge, 94% of whom did not subsequently commit suicide (published in 1978 in Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior) and Glasgow asserts that this study is meaningless. It is not perfect, but it is sufficient evidence to conclude that barriers will save lives.

Fact:
These civic groups oppose the barriers boondoggle:
Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association
Santa Barbara County Action Network
Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation
Los Padres Chapter of the Sierra Club
Womens Environmental Watch
Citizens Planning Association South County Land Use Committee
Santa Ynez Valley Alliance
Pearl Chase Society
Los Padres ForestWatch
Friends of the Bridge

Fantasy:
That these folks look like they overuse controlled substances (see comment above).

And so it goes.

>>"Pretty much all the criticisms Garrett Glasgow makes of Glendon apply equally well to him; he has monotonously repeated the same skepticisms, but has not provided a positive proof of anything."

Nice try, but no.

Ample positive proof of the fact that nearly every researcher and public health agency agrees that barriers are not proven to save lives is available here:

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

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

Instead of childish name-calling and straw man slaying, you should invest your energy in reading some of the current research on the topic of suicide barriers on bridges.

I know you'll dodge these questions, but I'll ask anyway.

(1) if Seiden's study is "sufficient evidence to conclude that barriers will save lives," why are researchers still studying the topic 30 years later, and flatly stating that we don't know if barriers save lives?

(2) Since the people in Seiden's study were saved by human intervention and not barriers, why we should regard Seiden's study is proof that barriers work, and not proof that human intervention works?

Hey, why is the Glendon Association fighting like hell to get a suicide barrier on the Cold Spring Bridge, but completely silent on this story?

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jun...

Yet more proof that the Glendon Association doesn't really care about suicidal people, but only cares about building a monument to their power.

Prof. Glasgow, just because researchers study something doesn't mean there is a significant question whether it is true or not. Researchers are studying intelligent design, UFO's, and the archaelogical of a tribe of Israel that supposedly came to the New World. Doesn't mean those are unresolved topics.

Your report is interesting: you discuss every bit of evidence, but it is easy to predict every conclusion you make: your work reminds me of the intelligent design analysis of evolution. Or tobacco attorney's analyses of the evidence for lung cancer from smoking. Their is zero chance you ever will conclude anything except what you set out to prove.

The Seiden study proves that folks who go to a suicide spot are not irrevocably tied to suicide. Like pro-creationists, you change the subject to evade the main point at every turn. I acknowledge that the effects you raise have some merit; the human intervention at the Golden Gate has *some* effect. But I do not agree that every one of the 480 folks found on the bridge were saved by human intervention; some reasonable fraction of them would have been saved by a barrier. Your world is so black and white you must argue that *0 out of 480* would have been saved by a barrier. That is just too extreme.

Extreme Cult, yes, the County management of the $40 million/year budget for Mental Health is atrocious; that $500,000 a year is spent on *ambulances* to transport to Ventura is absurd. How can anyone trust that more money poured into County Mental Health will be well spent?

The measly $100,000 year (at most) a barrier would cost would probably end up paying for a new retirement apartment for Michael Brown's retirement home in London.

Yawn, sevendolphins.

Cool pic of Marc with a stop sign! Go stilt-man! Get a *bigger* stop sign and hang out in stilts on the bridge to cheer depressed guys back to a good mood!

Thanks sevendolphins, your posts always give me a chuckle.

Rather than talk about my conclusions, let's take a look at the conclusions of some other researchers and public health organizations.

Here's a quote from the World Health Organization:

"... the use of fencing on high buildings and bridges could also contribute to a reduction in suicide rates, although there is no definitive evidence to support this idea."

A quote from Beautrais (2001), which was actually cited by the Glendon Association in this debate in an attempt to prove me wrong:

"The weight of evidence from these studies clearly suggests reductions in the rate of suicide by jumping from the sites following the introduction of barriers. However, the extent to which such changes lead to (i) an overall reduction in suicide or, (ii) increased preferences for other sites or methods remains contentious."

And a quote from Reisch et al. (2007), the most recent published study on the topic:

"Barriers on bridges may prevent suicides but also may lead to substitution of jumping site or method."

These organizations and researchers are saying exactly what I'm saying. Do they also remind you of the "intelligent design analysis of evolution"?

`definitive evidence' depends on the definition of definitive. Some people smoke all their lives and show no ill effects of smoking... like Winston Churchill. Arguments like that are still used by the tobacco industry, mainly outside the U.S. now. They'd say the evidence against smoking is not definitive.

I don't think those institutions say `Don't build the Cold Spring Barrier.' That is what you are saying. So you are being disingenuous.

They are saying it is hard to estimate how many lives would be saved. But they never say 0 lives would be saved.

Are you saying that 0 of Seiden's 480 or so subjects found on the Golden Gate Bridge but who chose not to go on to commit suicide would have been saved by a barrier? Why don't you answer yes or no? Perhaps you can give an estimate of how many of the 480 or so of Seiden's subjects would have been saved.

I know your answer... `There is no evidence that any of them would have been saved by a barrier.' That is exactly the same dodge that the big Tobacco uses. When an actual decision needs to be made, some reasonable anzatz need to be employed. Given the Seiden data, it is quite reasonable to conclude that a whole lot of bridge visitors are not going to redirect or substitute. And it is prudent to take the action that tends to save lives.

You and other anti-barrier folks have totally ignored that there already is a big human barrier at Cold Spring... according to the Caltrans EIR, about 20 times a year... about once every two weeks.... law enforcement is deployed to the bridge to take care of a distressed person. And those same law enforcement officers strongly support a barrier!

It isn't Marc McGuinnes or Garrett Glasgow who is up on the Cold Spring bridge at 2am on a Saturday Morning talking someone down. You guys just sit back and have theoretical BS sessions while you let others do the hard work, and those others prefer a barrier.

>>"`definitive evidence' depends on the definition of definitive."

So, what is your definition of "definitive"?

>>"`There is no evidence that any of them would have been saved by a barrier.' That is exactly the same dodge that the big Tobacco uses."

And as we've already seen, that's also exactly what researchers and public health agencies have explicitly said dozens of times.

It's telling that when confronted with explicit, unavoidable evidence that suicide researchers and public health agencies say exactly what I say, you go to incredible lengths to deny it. So far you've:

(1) Argued that people already know that suicide barriers save lives, and therefore current research on suicide barriers that is being published in peer-reviewed journals is equivalent to research into UFOs.

(2) Argued that there is a definition of the word "definitive" that allows you to ignore the quote from the WHO.

(3) Argued that since past research didn't explicitly say that *nobody* would be saved by barriers, this must therefore be proof that *somebody* will be saved. You did this while ignoring the fact that past research also didn't explicitly say that barriers would save lives.

Instead of torturing logic and common sense, wouldn't it just be easier to admit that nobody knows if barriers save lives or not?

Well, these discussions go on forever because you dissemble at every opportunity, Prof. Glasgow.

Seiden found that 480 folks found on the Golden Gate Bridge in a distressed state did not go on to commit suicide. That is definitive evidence to me that a reasonable fraction (1/3? 1/2? not sure, but definitely not *0*) would be saved by a barrier.

Most distressed people don't make a list of which famous suicide spots have barriers.

Case closed for me. Lots of people know barriers will save lives, particularly the first responders who now go up to Cold Spring every 2 weeks or so to rescue distressed people (something you or Marc McGuinnes never bother to do) and who strongly argue for barriers.

CalTrans is willing to spend 3.2 million dollars for a barrier on a bridge that someone has to puposefully drive to in order to jump from. Yet, it refused to pay a paltry $350,000 (in inflated 2008 dollars) on a stoplight to protect pedestrians and drivers at the corner of Foothill (Hwy 192) and Cieneguitas Road. Many of the people who use this intersection have no choice and have to use it in order to leave their homes.

CalTrans knew for over 10 years this corner is a death trap. It was reminded of this fact when a motorcyclist was killed, through no fault of his own, in 2005. CalTrans did nothing. A pedestrian was hit by a vehicle at the very same spot this past week through no fault of her own and subsequently died of her injuries.

The Cold Spring Bridge barrier may be debatable, but the need for traffic control at the Foothill-Cieneguitas intersection is not. Traffic control is imperative whether it be a stoplight or 4-way stop signs... and not in one month or three months or longer. Please sign the petition demanding action now at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/SafeCro...

A few months ago sevendolphins was saying things like:

"The SBSO arrogantly views citizens as obstacles and annoyances who should shut up and fork over their tax money. I've seen it over and over again."

"Who would ever believe a single statement made by the Sheriff's Department?"

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/mar...
http://www.independent.com/news/2008/mar...

Now the Sheriff's Department tells us they want to divert $3.2 million in highway safety money to their pet project designed to make their jobs easier. This project happens to be the barrier, and suddenly sevendolphins finds the SBSO to be credible and deserving of our support.

Yeah right.

Like I said sevendolphins, nobody's buying what your selling.

Why thank you ETC. Concerning the shooting of a citizen, I am always alarmed, which is the context of the comments you quote.

Now when the SBSO *saves* lives, as they do on the Cold Spring bridge, I'm glad to be foursquare in their support.

Talking someone down when they are threatening to jump of the Cold Spring bridge, that is first rate sheriffing. I tip my hat to the first responders who do that, and apologize for my extreme comment when Donald George was shot.