Live data from Hacker News

Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

nopromiseofsafety.com

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#41

Amazing things like this make me wish I wasn't afraid of heights. Even the pictures sort of make me feel uneasy. Haha Regardless, this is incredible.

Take up skydiving and then BASE jumping. I too was afraid of heights, then one night I was on a scaffold climbing 300 ft in the air. I thought then, you know this isn't scary anymore.

Skydiving is a good way to ease into it, because you're so high it doesn't have the immediate danger that being lower to the ground, but relatively high does.

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#42

In railfanning we don't look kindly on people who trespass to great the 'perfect shot' because they just end up screwing things up for everyone else with ever increasing rules, surveillance and fences. Please think about the consequences of your actions when doing something like this.

Same for BASE jumping. I had a talking too with the guy from this blog. He was eventually arrested, but after getting a few things we were jumping locked up.

There is a history of tar and feathering (with cold tar) people that ruin it for everyone else.

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#43
It is the most photographed landmark in the country

I am sorry but that is BS. I could not find any statistics about "photographed landmarks" but a quick check of any measure of tourism and this seems extremely unlikely. For starters San Francisco's tourism does not come close to NYC.

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#44

I'm really not sure how I feel about these things. On one hand, these are great escapades, and they result in fantastic pictures. I do like seeing "forbidden and forgotten areas". On the other hand, I would never want to encourage anyone to do something like this. It's illegal for a reason. The reason is not just your own safety. If he had fallen on to the road side of the bridge, not only would he die, but he would…

Actually, they were using shock-absorbing lanyards, so, assuming they were using then correctly, a fall would result in a deployed shock pack and a dangling climber. Rescue from that position is another matter, and they don't say anything about that.

That being said, I think the author mentions carrying their camera and tripod by hand on the way down, which is a huge no-no. A drop could in serious damage or death as you mentioned.

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#45
post #43

It is the most photographed landmark in the country I am sorry but that is BS. I could not find any statistics about "photographed landmarks" but a quick check of any measure of tourism and this seems extremely unlikely. For starters San Francisco's tourism does not come close to NYC.

I've heard the same stat before ( I think I read it some place else) but it made no sense, either.

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#46
post #43

It is the most photographed landmark in the country I am sorry but that is BS. I could not find any statistics about "photographed landmarks" but a quick check of any measure of tourism and this seems extremely unlikely. For starters San Francisco's tourism does not come close to NYC.

I don't think the comment was meant to be statistically accurate.

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#47
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I never saw the Mythbusters show. Why would a 300-foot fall into water definitely kill you? I know the world dive record is 172 feet. And terminal velocity for a human is about 120 mph. I imagine if you make yourself flat for most of the fall you could lower that speed and then right before you hit the water take a "pencil" position. Would you not at least have some chance of surviving that?

Water is incompressible. So the fall ends up being pretty close to 300 ft. to concrete vs. 30 ft. to concrete. Entering the water toes-first would just mean you have broken legs as well as being dead.

It seems to me the surface tension is the deal-breaker here. When you land feet first, your feet break the surface of the water, which allows for the water to move around the incoming object. You want to minimize distribution of force to only the bottom of the feet.

Of course the force exerted on your feet would more than likely break your ankles and possibly your knees/legs, and severely impinge your hip joint. In addition, your head will likely receive an extreme "punch" as it comes into contact with the water. This alone might be enough to knock someone unconscious or kill them, but it depends on their neck, chest, head, body position, etc.

So if the mythbusters test were done again, it should definitely not be a really fat pig landing on its side; it should be a skinny dummy landing perfectly straight.

I am not a scientist, but I do have experience with cliff diving. (The real trick is when the water level is low, you have to expand your body as soon as you hit the water so you don't shoot down and hit the rocks at the bottom!)

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#48
post #43

It is the most photographed landmark in the country I am sorry but that is BS. I could not find any statistics about "photographed landmarks" but a quick check of any measure of tourism and this seems extremely unlikely. For starters San Francisco's tourism does not come close to NYC.

That's what the tour guides say in SF. Actually, some of them said it was most photographed in the WORLD.

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#49

If you like this sort of thing, you might appreciate Vitaly Raskalov [0]. 0: http://englishrussia.com/2013/03/22/on-top-of-the-pyramide/#...

I was offered the chance to do this in Egypt. I was told that it was totally safe as long as I brought along enough bride money in the event that we got caught.

Re: Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

#50
post #43

It is the most photographed landmark in the country I am sorry but that is BS. I could not find any statistics about "photographed landmarks" but a quick check of any measure of tourism and this seems extremely unlikely. For starters San Francisco's tourism does not come close to NYC.

That's what the tour guides say in SF. Actually, some of them said it was most photographed in the WORLD.

Is this a joke?
Post reply on HN