Quote:
Originally Posted by NewWester
Sorry, you're right I shouldn't have exaggerated.
My point was, having experienced other view-based landmarks with safety fencing, that I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think it actually impacts views all that tremendously...I'm not sure views off the bridge are as much of a landmark as you are selling them to be. Also, I personally know some people who have had a family member disappear mysteriously allegedly in the vicinity of downtown bridges. I'm pretty okay with measures taken to protect human lives and I think the vast majority of non-architecture junkies value human lives over a perfectly preserved view.
|
You didn't exaggerate anything; you concocted something completely out of thin air. But apology accepted.
Now, if you don't think a suicide fence, like the one recently installed on the Second Narrows Bridge, "impacts the views all that tremendously," then there can be no further arguing with you on that front. If you "don't see what the big deal is" regarding the difference in quality of views and experiences between the caged-in Second Narrows Bridge and the open and free Burrard Bridge, then you certainly have a roughly calibrated aesthetic instrument and any further appeal to you on that ground would be pointless.
Second Narrows Bridge:
North Vancouver Second Narrows bike 2 by
Steve Burgess1, on Flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tigeyb/22959935235/in/photostream/
Burrard Bridge:
Burrard Bridge by
Lindsay Marguerite, on Flickr
1J6A4545 by
John Bentley, on Flickr
Burrard bridge Vancouver by
Djordje Cicovic, on Flickr
View from Burrard Bridge by
Colin Knowles, on Flickr
IMG_3332 by
VancityAlex, on Flickr
Burrard Bridge by
Lindsay Marguerite, on Flickr
What else can one say?
However, your assertions regarding both the morality and effectiveness of suicide fences are demonstrably false.
The latter assertion is an empirical matter. What some empirical studies have shown is that suicide fences are effective in preventing suicides at a particular bridge without a corresponding increase in suicides at other bridges. But, despite the absence of a corresponding increase in suicides at other bridges, no empirical study has shown that the installment of suicide fences has any effect on the overall suicide rate in a given metro area or region. Indeed, some of the studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of suicide fences at preventing suicides at a particular bridge also uncovered a lower rate of suicide per capita in the region prior to the installation of the suicide fence and no statistically meaningful decrease in the overall suicide rate after the installation. Whether there is a causal connection between suicide fences and the overall suicide rate in a given region is thus far unsupported by the empirical data. Indeed, the empirical data thus far appears to
contradict the claim that any causal connection exists at all. The true causality of suicide rates is likely too complex and variable and cannot be solved or even marginally ameliorated by bubble wrapping our physical environment or imprisoning ourselves behind metal cages. But what is certain is that no empirical study has proven that suicide fences have any causal effect on the overall suicide rate in a metro area or region.
Thus, science does not support your argument that suicide fences are effective in curtailing suicide in any meaningful way. And if suicide fences have no effect on a region's overall suicide rate, then they fail to achieve any meaningful objective and succeed only in ruining the beauty and quality of experience of our bridges for the rest of the population.
Regarding your argument from morality, I will start by pointing out the obvious: if there is no causal connection between the installment of suicide fences and a net decrease in suicide, then your argument about their morality is meaningless. That which does no good, cannot be any good.
But (for the sake of argument) even if we assume suicide fences have a marginal effect on the net suicide rate and "measures taken to protect human lives" should be preferred over "a perfectly preserved view", then not only is your argument false, it is hypocritical.
It is false on numerous grounds, not least of which is the fact that Burrard Bridge
does have "measures to protect human lives." They are called
railings, which are perfectly effective in protecting the lives of normal human beings, or 99.99% of the people who use the bridge. The individuals whose lives the railings are not an effective measure in protecting are those special few who do not want their lives to be protected and who purposely circumvent the otherwise perfectly adequate safety measures.
And such an argument smacks of hypocrisy. Do you spend any money on entertainment or any form of joy or pleasure which is unnecessary for your physical sustenance? Do you go to sporting events? Do you go on vacation? Do you eat out occasionally at a nice restaurant? Do you consume art and culture? Do you go to the movies? Do you watch TV? Whatever it is you personally like to do for fun, if you seriously place human life over everything else, especially activities based on mere pleasure, then you should stop doing those activities immediately and give every dollar you have which is not strictly necessary for your physical survival over to charity, or to the search for the cure for cancer, or to the hungry children of the world, or to the study of suicide prevention, etc.
The spiritual joy (which you claim to be insensible to, depite your professed belief in the value of the viewcones) that many Vancouverites and I derive from the spetacular, unobstructed views while crossing our city's urban bridges is
sui generis and often more profound than any of the other forms of entertainment listed above. As Daniel Johnston says in his song,
The Story of an Artist: "
The sun don't shine in your TV."
If preventing premature death (even
intentional death) was the overriding standard of urban policy, then in addition to mandating the installment of suicide cages on every balcony, on every window, and along every sidewalk beside every busy road and rail road track, we should ban every potentially dangerous recreational activity, such as skiing, snowboarding, mountain climbing, boating, camping, bicycling, race car driving, swimming, skydiving, etc. In other words, some of the very things which make us human and our lives worth living.
That's the absurdity and outright contradiction that your arguments in favour of suicide fences lead us to.
Prev
Linear Mode
