Analysis of the cost effectiveness of a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge
Open accessAbstract
Background: The Golden Gate Bridge (GGB) is a well-known “suicide magnet” and the site of approximately 30 suicides per year. Recently, a suicide barrier was approved to prevent further suicides. Aims: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the proposed suicide barrier, we compared the proposed costs of the barrier over a 20-year period ($51.6 million) to estimated reductions in mortality. Method: We reviewed San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge suicides over a 70-year period (1936–2006). We assumed that all suicides prevented by the barrier would attempt suicide with alternative methods and estimated the mortality reduction based on the difference in lethality between GGB jumps and other suicide methods. Cost/benefit analyses utilized estimates of value of statistical life (VSL) used in highway projects. Results: GGB suicides occur at a rate of approximately 30 per year, with a lethality of 98%. Jumping from other structures has an average lethality of 47%. Assuming that unsuccessful suicides eventually committed suicide at previously reported (12–13%) rates, approximately 286 lives would be saved over a 20-year period at an average cost/life of approximately $180,419 i.e., roughly 6% of US Department of Transportation minimal VSL estimate ($3.2 million). Conclusions: Cost-benefit analysis suggests that a suicide barrier on the GGB would result in a highly cost-effective reduction in suicide mortality in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 46
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Wendling A. (1954). Suicide in San Francisco Bay regions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
- Authors
- Atkins Whitmer, D., & Woods, D. L.
- Affiliations
- Human Cognitive Neurophysiology Research Laboratory, VA Northern California Healthcare Outpatient Clinic, Martinez, CA, USA
- Martinez VA Medical Center (US)
- ORCID
- Woods, David Lauren
- Venue
- Crisis
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Published
- 2013-03-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 98-106
- ISSN
- 0227-5910 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-2396
- PMC
- PMC3643780
- OpenAlex
- W2159011097
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Crisis (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Injury Epidemiology and Prevention
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
- Keywords
- Golden Gate Bridge, suicide prevention, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis, value of a statistical life, bridge jumping, suicide mortality, San Francisco Bay Area
- MeSH terms
- Suicide Prevention, Architectural Accessibility, Cause of Death, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cross-Sectional Studies, Environment Design, Humans, San Francisco, Suicide, Transportation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review