Humber Bridge path closed to cyclists 'indefinitely'

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Couldn't the bridge have jumpers on the downstream cyclists on the other. I'm all equal opportunities

"Jumpers" are real people suffering from a potentially fatal illness that impairs rational thought and can cause acute despair. They also have families and friends who care about them (believe it or not).
The impact of this illness is widespread, from the individual, to their friends and family, to the emergency services and others affected by a stranger's death.
The good news is that in its chronic state the illness can be manageable if not curable. Even its acute state, where the greatest immediate risk manifests, can be treated.
It helps though not to dehumanise people who are suffering an acute illness by labelling them "jumpers".

Look up Simon Mason bp - that's me.

That's awful, but I'm glad you're still with us.

Mrs Hawkinspeter suffered from positional vertigo for a short time - that's where you have some calcium deposits caught in your inner ear that gave her a spinning sensation in certain positions. Luckily we found a series of movements (on YouTube - Epley manoeuvre) that can help to clear them. It looked really odd when she'd sit up in bed and I could see her eyes flicking left and right.

swldxer wrote:

Look up Simon Mason bp - that's me.

I can only second HP's comment. Glad you're still with us, and I hope things have got better with time.

Inappropriate, the suicides leave families and friends behind who are all asking "why?" I sincerely hope you are never in that position.

They can enforce it because the Humber Bridge bye-laws permit assault of pedestrians and cyclists by private contractors provided the force is "reasonable" and in order to prevent access.

And yet, cycling is widely acknowledged to have a positive effect on mental health. So close the bridge to cyclists. It makes sense, unfortunately, if you only take stock of one side of the balance.

Indeed, but there's a timing mismatch. Cycling can help with mental health but isn't going to do much quickly enough for someone whose life is so hard to endure that they would rather end it.

We have a mental health crisis and despite heroic efforts from some on the front line, it is not going away. In part this is due to lack of resources to treat people. But it's also because modern life gives many people little chance. Genetics, trauma, bad luck also play their roles, and we are still short of proven ways to prevent or treat the illness.

TheBillder wrote:

Genetics, trauma, bad luck also play their roles, and we are still short of proven ways to prevent or treat the illness.

Are we though?  We know what works, and we know the causes, but we can't disrupt society to make people happy can we?  Does society exist to make a few people rich or to make most people happy?

Look at the countries which are the most happy, and learn the lessons.

The first step is to stop measuring the progress of a country in GDP and start measuring how happy it's citizens are instead.

You can't meaningfully measure GDP, but it doesn't stop people from trying.

There are lots of proposed methods measuring happiness. The problem is that none have gained universal traction. Individual countries advocating their own methodology. Humans are naturally competitive, unless counties agree on one method and organise a league table we won't be reporting on our standing annually.
This is basically the success of GDP. There are other methods of measuring the economy but at the end of the day we like to do comparisons.

it isnt you are right, and it is a sad reflection of the way we deal with mental illness, rather than tackling the underlying causes and providing the real support for that before individuals find themselves in this position that this becomes necessary

but there is real evidence that removing the opportunity for people to easily access these kind of locations, actually does work, it interrupts the process, provides an extra stop on the way, that might mean an intervention works or a person reconsiders their choices.

the question becomes not so much about whether the bridge is closed to pedestrians/cyclists, but how does it reopen to be safe for everyone to use it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

This sounds like a cheap-skate way of addressing a symptom of mental illness rather than putting some effort into dealing with the underlying causes. Keep the bridge open and at least make some Samaritans resources available and ideally provide decent counselling facilities. I'd be concerned that they're just going to shift the problem elsewhere, so instead of so many bridge jumpers there'll be greater hospital admissions for pill overdoses etc.

The problem isn't the bridge.

The problem isn't the bridge. And therefore the Bridge Board have no means off addressing the problem, but have to deal with its consequences. It's one of many problems where the consequences are felt individually and locally but the solution can only be taken by everyone acting together, from schools to employers to GPs to MPs to, ooh, highway authorities and on and on... 

Sriracha wrote:

Add it on to reasons why cyclists use the carriageway... "Why don't you cycle on the bloody cycle path?" "Because we're not allowed to." Not sure it will be a whole lot safer, but who are we to know?

What's the roadway like over the bridge? Could you use off road paths up to the bridge, go over the bridge on the road, then come off again? Still got to be better than seventy miles the long way around?

If the authority dropped the speed limit across the bridge all cyclists should be able to use it safely. Then they just need to lay on buses for the pedestrians.

IanMK wrote:

If the authority dropped the speed limit across the bridge all cyclists should be able to use it safely. Then they just need to lay on buses for the pedestrians.

Exactly!

To an extent this is true, but it's often very very windy on the bridge. Even with vehicles going very very slowly I don't think  I'd want to cycle with traffic on there. I've seen cyclists blown off their bikes on the cycle path a fair few times. Not too dangerous in those circumstances but certainly not ideal when combined with lorries and buses. 

I alreayd know of at least one cyclist who has decided to use the carriageway here (even though it's technically prohibited, when faced with a 50 mile diversion, it's hardly unreasonable). So the board have, in order to stop people from taking their own lives at this particular spot, put the lives of other people in jeopardy by mixing it up with motor traffic on a dual carriageway with high winds...

If an incident occurs, corporate manslaughter?