Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Illegally climbing the Golden Gate bridge at dawn (2011)

nopromiseofsafety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 127 posts

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

#91

Post by mikeash »

hnriot wrote: post #64
DanBC wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People committing suicide would tend to jump off the bridge into the water? There are, very roughly, one person committing suicide per fortnight from the Goldengate Bridge. One idea to slow down that number o fdeaths is to install a big net. It'll hurt when people land on it, and that might be enough to snap them out of the impulsive decision to end their lives. The net would cost about $45m. Some people might feel t…

not sure what this had to do the parent comment, but if there's a net, people will find other ways. It's like making prostitution illegal, did it really cut down on the number of people having sex? Of course not.

People want to have sex. They do not want to commit suicide, but are driven to it.

This "they will find other ways" idea is silly, dangerous, and not supported by the facts.

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

#92

Post by sliverstorm »

qqg3 wrote: post #86
katbyte wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally climb bridges (in fact suspensions just like this) and other structures for photography now and then, and i would never do what they did without a harness and safety system preventing me, or any of my gear, from falling. Unfortunately not everyone is safe about it, things from his post: > A slip of the foot could result in certain death. But We rolled the dice – flipped the coin. > Needing to get above t…

Did you read onwards? He clipped himself in with safety lanyards once he was above the level of the streetlights...

"Safety lanyards" could be anything, and there's a whole lot of personal anchors that people think will protect them, but actually won't. The problem being that even in a short fall, your body will generate pretty amazing forces on static equipment.

Black Diamond did a great article about it, though they are going through some growing pains right now with a new website. The article was, "Daisy Chain Dangers"

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

#94

Post by aray »

barce wrote: post #93

You can get a permit for this and do it legally: http://www.parksconservancy.org/visit/tours/golden-gate-brid...

Looking at those photos it seems like they just have a staged segment where you can get a "climbing the tower" picture taken, not actually climb the tower.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/parksconservancy/sets/721576304...

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

#95

Post by sc00ter »

sliverstorm wrote: post #92
qqg3 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read onwards? He clipped himself in with safety lanyards once he was above the level of the streetlights...

"Safety lanyards" could be anything, and there's a whole lot of personal anchors that people think will protect them, but actually won't. The problem being that even in a short fall, your body will generate pretty amazing forces on static equipment. Black Diamond did a great article about it, though they are going through some growing pains right now with a new website. The article was, "Daisy Chain Dangers"

"I hooked up [two] my shock absorbing lanyards"

You really didn't read it, did you?

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

#96

Post by sliverstorm »

sc00ter wrote: post #95
sliverstorm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Safety lanyards" could be anything, and there's a whole lot of personal anchors that people think will protect them, but actually won't. The problem being that even in a short fall, your body will generate pretty amazing forces on static equipment. Black Diamond did a great article about it, though they are going through some growing pains right now with a new website. The article was, "Daisy Chain Dangers"

"I hooked up [two] my shock absorbing lanyards" You really didn't read it, did you?

"shock absorbing lanyards" could be anything, and there's a whole lot of personal anchors that people think will protect them, but actually won't.

Better?

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

#97

Post by timr »

lostlogin wrote: post #66
ryguytilidie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious how a net to go under the bridge would cost $45m. How?

I've only been there once, but I'm picking that harsh weather, height and the need for attachment points outside the existing bridge make it expensive. I'm not at all surprised that it is expensive, but I am that it hasn't been done yet.

A primary complaint, believe it or not, is that the net would hurt the aesthetics of the bridge.

People have been pushing for a net for years, but a variety of (lame) excuses keep conspiring against it. The reality is that there's no really good reason to keep from doing it...just a lot of little bad ones that seem to win.

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

#98

Post by uptown »

DanBC wrote: post #57
dfc wrote: 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.

( http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43240059/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/m... ) > Mining data from 35 million Flickr photos, scientists at Cornell University made some surprising discoveries: Not only did the world's most photographed cities (and the most captured landmark in each) emerge, but also so did the most common angles for shooting each place. There are some American cities in the top twenty-five; and some Californian c…

"> Mining data from 35 million Flickr photos"

I'm not sure Flickr can be considered an accurate representation of the majority of photographers.

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

#99

Post by mapt »

glurgh wrote: post #30
nathanb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I love the TV show Mythbusters: they routinely demonstrate how our intuition on these matters is wrong. (A 30-foot fall onto concrete might still kill you, but a 300-foot fall into water will definitely kill you. And if the fall onto concrete doesn't kill you, it will be much easier to get you the medical attention you need if you're not floating in San Francisco Bay).

Mythbusters: they routinely demonstrate how our intuition on these matters is wrong. Or demonstrate that things we're sure about are sometimes not quite right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=E40... (Fast forward to 5 mins) 300-foot fall into water will definitely kill you. Some do survive the actual jump and impact into the bay. Some (very rarely) are even recovered and survive the entire or…

About 2% if I recall correctly.
Post reply on HN