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.

It's not really our job to protect everyone from themselves though and adding a net not only would hurt the aesthetic of the bridge, but serve as a constant, dreary reminder of death. In addition, adding a net is simply a small measure at treating a symptom without affecting the cause. Lastly, what would adding a net solve? The people who wanted to kill themselves by jumping off now know there is a net to stop it, so they decide to kill themselves some other way instead.

How about, "The net is estimated to cost $45m and California is broke"?

How about "it's not society's job to keep people (even insane ones) from doing what they want with their own bodies"?

You can take this to apply to everything from the inside of one's uterus to hurling oneself off a bridge.

It is societies job to look after everyone, especially the unwell. I do recall there being a handrail, so someone believes in some safety.

I feel like if we are building a net to catch people trying to commit suicide, we are "looking after everyone" the complete wrong way, not to mention way too late.

Handrails are to prevent accidents by people not trying to hurl themselves off.

You are confusing safety with coercion.

I get your first statement, however If someone falls off due to poor sight/bad knees/inner ear problems or someone jumps off due to a temporary depressive illness, I see little difference. All relate to medical problems. It's not that I'm rabidly anti suicide - I am pro suicide rights - but I'd hardly call a net coercion. Can you explain this for me? Grafton Bridge in Auckland has put up Perspex screens for suicide prevention (and the safely of those under the bridge) instead of nets. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafton_Bridge

I don't feel like "45 million dollars is too much to spend on a device to save the lives of people who are doing everything in their power to die" is a lame excuse, but whatever.

"the bridge" is a fantastic documentary which looks into issues, and talks with some of the people who lost family to depression/suicide on the Golden Gate bridge. Well worth watching

[edit] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0799954

The Golden Gate Bridge is huge - 2700 meters long and 250 meters high, with high winds and fog. That's a pretty large undertaking.