Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is just another example of stupidity throughout government in this country. Why would anyone propose spending $50 million on a net when the the bridge is running a freaking deficit already?
You just know that as soon as this thing is completed you will have a bunch of thrill seekers jumping into the net just for fun. When law enforcement shows up they will claim they were attempting suicide and need mental help.
Free thrill with little or no legal repercussions.... Yep, sounds like the California I remember.
Of course I also forgot the most important aspect, if someone attempts suicide for real and the net saves them but hurts them in the process, then they will end up suing the bridge for physical and emotional harm... and win... it's California after all.
I'm hoping someone will come into this thread and offer any positives to this idiotic expenditure.
I can't think of any.
The only positive I can think of is macabre. Scooping them out of nets is more efficient and hygienic than chasing floaters around after they've been submerged for weeks.
My advice: Anyone committed to killing themselves economically please consider an ordinary dry cleaner bag over your head, $5 worth of rope, or $5 worth of over the counter pills. If you aren't serious, call the 800# or call a friend for free. 5 million for a net (that will be subject to never ending maint/repair in marine environment) is a complete waste of time and might attract/ kill sea birds.
Well....I thought of that one and maybe even the savings in search/recsue but figure if the net does it's job as a deterrent , cleaning up the splat on the sidewalk of a tall building might be worse and more disruptive.
This is just another example of stupidity throughout government in this country. Why would anyone propose spending $50 million on a net when the the bridge is running a freaking deficit already?
Well....I thought of that one and maybe even the savings in search/recsue but figure if the net does it's job as a deterrent , cleaning up the splat on the sidewalk of a tall building might be worse and more disruptive.
Yes that's what I meant, I was just trying to avoid being graphic while everyone was drinking their coffee this morning. Search and rescue, plus the police reports, coroner on the clock... it all adds up to tidy sums spread around 3 levels of governance so the real math never really gets looked at in the end. Not to mention the randomness of them churned up by props or washing ashore on public beaches ruining family outings and such. But hey, it sells papers, right?
The city of Akron spent money on a tall fence for a bridge that people used to jump off of but less then 2 miles is a bigger bridge with no fence.What a waste of money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
