NYTimes: In Nevada, the Viewing Has Begun From the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge

For those that are interested, the NY Times has this article on the new bypass bridge. And for those that have not seen it, there is a more personal article from the Wizard on the bridge here.

I went out on it for the first time in November and thought it was well worth doing. I'd followed the progress online for years as well as seeing it many times as I drove in to the city and it was great to see it without all the construction equipment. I'm looking forward to driving over it for the first time in a couple of weeks.

I was there relatively early on a Monday morning, probably about 10-11, and parking was somewhat of a nightmare. The dam police, (not to be confused with the "damn police"), had to sit at the lot turn off and turn cars away. And in case you are planning on visiting with something in your vehicle you are not supposed to have beware; they are still doing searches. They had me pull over, open the trunk, etc. and said it was just random and every x number of cars were searched.

I parked in the bus area down the hill, which probably gets close to doubling the height and distance to the bridge from that of the regular lot. I suspect that in time they are going to have to do something to increase the parking availability as there is so much interest in it, and I doubt that will ease much, if at all.

I am shocked that they choose not to put higher barriers to prevent suicides in Nevada.


The Duke Ellington bridge in Washington DC became known as "suicide bridge" before they put up the metal barriers. They stopped the work for a few weeks as people debated the esthetics of the anti-suicide bars, and two people jumped while they were debating. Those last two suicides ended the debate, and the bars went up.


In Canada they designed a veil which would keep the view clear, but still prevent suicides

Should we stop suicides being successful, apart from the clean up work required?

Surely people should have the right to end their own lives in a free-market, liberal and open society?

I remember a tour guide at Hoover Dam discussing suicides by jumping off the dam. The attitude was something to the effect that, "So long as they bounce into the water and drift far enough downstream before coming to shore to be outside the boundaries of our responsibility, then it's someone else's problem, and we don't really get involved or care."

Quote: pacomartin

In Canada they designed a veil which would keep the view clear, but still prevent suicides

Do you really consider that a clear view?


While the high rails on the Duke Ellington bridge are far more aesthetically pleasing than this, it's still an obstruction.

And an unnecessary expense.


If someone is bent on suicide, some silly little railing will not stop them. Oh, sure, it may make them find a different location to jump, but they'll find it.

Quote: thecesspit

Should we stop suicides being successful, apart from the clean up work required?

Surely people should have the right to end their own lives in a free-market, liberal and open society?

I think someone who wants to jump off a bridge to end their life is "impaired", and is not capable of making a rational decision in this weighty matter.

Quote: thecesspit

Should we stop suicides being successful, apart from the clean up work required?

Surely people should have the right to end their own lives in a free-market, liberal and open society?

Here here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWGS2b3tP1c

Quote: PaulEWog

...
I was there relatively early on a Monday morning, probably about 10-11, and parking was somewhat of a nightmare. The dam police, (not to be confused with the "damn police"), had to sit at the lot turn off and turn cars away. And in case you are planning on visiting with something in your vehicle you are not supposed to have beware; they are still doing searches. They had me pull over, open the trunk, etc. and said it was just random and every x number of cars were searched.
...

Hello, Mr. Paranoid here.

I was under the understanding that the bypass bridge's main function was to prevent someone hauling a nuke from blowing the damn up. Y'all know my opinions on the damn being the only water/energy source for a lots of folks, and y'all can rightfully assume that if we suddenly lost the damn, we would be in a world of hurt.

However, if someone blew up that same truckload from atop the new bypass bridge, I think it would be a MORE EFFECTIVE detonation point than can be achieved anywhere on the old highway. In fact, when we detonated our A-bombs in Japan, that's almost exactly the detonation point we used to effect the most damage; 1 mile ABOVE the ground. The force generates a shockwave that has a much more powerful effect than if the distance isn't there. This was predicted and calculated well in advance, planned and executed precisely in December, 1945, and everyone knows the results.

Here is a study verifying what I‘m spewing.

If you look at the angle the damn face has with the land, and if you extend a perpendicular line from its dead center out about one mile... there you are, sittting comfortably in you're mini-van in the Westbound lane of the new "BY-PASS" bridge.

I'm no structural engineer, but I'm guessing that the canyon would also vector the force of anything detonated at that spot directly to the center of the damn, and thus it would require a MUCH smaller device to bust it than had they never built the bridge.


(paranoid ranting about THEM follows...)
I think THEY know this, THEY already knew it, THEY've known it all along in fact, and THEY're only searching cars now to assure that anything that gets blown up will be done so according to THEIR schedules using THEIR bombs under the pretences that THEY want everyone to believe (with the help of THEIR state-controled media) ... has anyone ever heard of building 7? If not, wake up and google it right now. Sorry to ruin your faith in THEM.

Quote: Ayecarumba

I think someone who wants to jump off a bridge to end their life is "impaired", and is not capable of making a rational decision in this weighty matter.

It can be a perfectly rational decision to end one's life; in fact, in the "proper" context, we even applaud the decision as noble, as in the soldier who falls on the grenade, or in Christian mythology where Jesus essentially commits suicide in order to redeem mankind. I also think that relatively few people have any problem with a person who is terminally ill and/or in severe, incurable pain ending their life.

For that matter, it may be a "bad" decision, viewed objectively, to take one's own life, but who decides? Who, as an outsider, can form any universal standard? So the answer is either to absolutely forbid suicide--which is a practical impossibility--or to acknowledge that it is a fundamental right to do as one wants with that most fundamental piece of human property--one's own life.

And I think that bridge barriers are not put up to keep people from killing themselves (they will just do it some other way), but to save the bridge maintenance crew from having to go fish out the body.

The barriers also impede the blast force. Who needs 'em?

Discflicker : The "it was a demolition" theory of building 7 has been anlayzed and rejected by minds far better than mine several times, that I think your looking for reds under the beds that don't exist.

That's it. I'm done.

marty

I've been to the bridge, and also spent time reading the theories. I'm not about to use an appeal to popularity (youtube video ratings...) as the basis of a logical conclusion.

I didn't jump off the Pat Tillman bridge, but then I AM un-American, but I have given it all a fair shake.

I find your request for me to kill myself rather distasteful.

I also think the idea that a multi billion dollar bridge was built to facilitate a mile high nuclear bombing of the Hoover dam as a serious statement self evident in its absurdity.

That's all I have to say about that as well.

Sure is a nice view though.

Wait, where did I suggest you kill yourself? You said you gave it a fair shake, you shoud be proud of that. That's all I ask, good for you! I'm sorry I ever broght it up.

Quote: mkl654321

For that matter, it may be a "bad" decision, viewed objectively, to take one's own life, but who decides? Who, as an outsider, can form any universal standard? So the answer is either to absolutely forbid suicide--which is a practical impossibility--or to acknowledge that it is a fundamental right to do as one wants with that most fundamental piece of human property--one's own life.

Suicide in this form as a conscious decision is a tragedy. Yes, the person is doing "what one wants", but the decision that the person is making is clearly wrong and misguided and needs help. To rationalize your own death is irrational. That's why it is illegal to help someone kill themselves. I would hope that if someone you know is suicidal, rather then say, "meh, it's your choice, go ahead", you would do something, anything, to get them the help that they need.

Bridges are built to carry objects from one side to the other. They are not there as suicide conduits. They have bars on the sides to prevent suicides. If you want to kill yourself, do it in the privacy of your own home.

Regarding bridges and other high palces, I'd worry more about barriers to prevent accidental falls and BASE jumping.

Suicides are often depressed or angry, or both, and may not be thinking rationally. Many of them don't even want to kill themselves, but to draw attention. Therefore the selection of a public place where they can be stopped.

Quote: boymimbo

Suicide in this form as a conscious decision is a tragedy. Yes, the person is doing "what one wants", but the decision that the person is making is clearly wrong and misguided and needs help. To rationalize your own death is irrational. That's why it is illegal to help someone kill themselves. I would hope that if someone you know is suicidal, rather then say, "meh, it's your choice, go ahead", you would do something, anything, to get them the help that they need.

Bridges are built to carry objects from one side to the other. They are not there as suicide conduits. They have bars on the sides to prevent suicides. If you want to kill yourself, do it in the privacy of your own home.

I look forward eagerly to the day when making a "wrong" decision, as defined by the government, is against the law and police actively intervene to keep you from making those wrong decisions. They certainly could have saved me from buying the wrong brand of peanut butter yesterday. They would keep people from moving to Las Vegas and buying a house. They would arrest and drag away anyone trying to buy a Double Whopper or a bucket of KFC.

This is beginning to sound quite attractive. Of course, we can't trust people to make their own decisions. The government should monitor our implanted microchips every moment of every day, in case we do something unwise. Of course, behavioral conditioning will make that first unlikely, then impossible, but in the meantime, there are still some fools our there who selfishly want to live their own lives in a socially non-optimal way. They have to be stopped--after all, WE know what is good for them far better than THEY do.

Quote: boymimbo

Suicide in this form as a conscious decision is a tragedy. Yes, the person is doing "what one wants", but the decision that the person is making is clearly wrong and misguided and needs help. To rationalize your own death is irrational. That's why it is illegal to help someone kill themselves. I would hope that if someone you know is suicidal, rather then say, "meh, it's your choice, go ahead", you would do something, anything, to get them the help that they need.

Bridges are built to carry objects from one side to the other. They are not there as suicide conduits. They have bars on the sides to prevent suicides. If you want to kill yourself, do it in the privacy of your own home.

Totally agree. For these reasons ...

Quote: nareed

Suicides are often depressed or angry, or both, and may not be thinking rationally. Many of them don't even want to kill themselves, but to draw attention. Therefore the selection of a public place where they can be stopped.

Can't think of a better way to say it. So why say anything at all? Because ...

Quote: mkl654321

I look forward eagerly to the day when making a "wrong" decision, as defined by the government, is against the law and police actively intervene to keep you from making those wrong decisions. They certainly could have saved me from buying the wrong brand of peanut butter yesterday. They would keep people from moving to Las Vegas and buying a house. They would arrest and drag away anyone trying to buy a Double Whopper or a bucket of KFC.

This is beginning to sound quite attractive. Of course, we can't trust people to make their own decisions. The government should monitor our implanted microchips every moment of every day, in case we do something unwise. Of course, behavioral conditioning will make that first unlikely, then impossible, but in the meantime, there are still some fools our there who selfishly want to live their own lives in a socially non-optimal way. They have to be stopped--after all, WE know what is good for them far better than THEY do.

I think this is one of the oldest balancing acts of the American experience. Clearly, there are wrong decisions out there ... clear examples include murdering, raping, etc. And clearly, it is correct to judge such behavior as wrong, legislate against it, and deny someone his/her freedom for doing it. So, wherever the line is drawn for ...

Quote: mkl654321

I look forward eagerly to the day when making a "wrong" decision, as defined by the government, is against the law and police actively intervene to keep you from making those wrong decisions.

... it can't be sensibly said that drawing the line at all is a bad thing. Governments of all types have drawn lines from time immemoriam. What makes the American experiment unique is HOW it draws lines and WHAT HAPPENS (due process) when someone crosses it.

The question as it regards suicide is a little murkier than for rape and murder, but there are still public safety issues with it, and legislating to account for that is, IMHO, completely appropriate.

If you try to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge into traffic, you are endangering others' safety, not to mention the mental health of the driver that delivers the death blow. Same for suicide-by-cop. And yes, even for blowing your head off ... what goes up must come down, and the bullet has to land somewhere. Any of these violent means endangers others, and that's a problem. Doing it and helping someone do it should, IMHO, be a crime.

For non-violent means, it gets even murkier ... what do you do for an overdose, or carbon monoxide? Since we can't make selfishness illegal, the person's desire for attention is beside the point. If there was some non-bill-of-attainder way of including violent means and excluding non-violent means from "crossing the line," I would be interested in that, but I totally don't think suicide-is-illegal is unreasonable at all.

Quote: discflicker

Sure is a nice view though.

Wait, where did I suggest you kill yourself? You said you gave it a fair shake, you shoud be proud of that. That's all I ask, good for you! I'm sorry I ever broght it up.

Well you removed the post you made, so it makes it hard for me to point out where you implied anyone who doesn't think there was a 9-11 conspiracy should jump off a bridge. Or at least point out where I've misunderstood your point.

Seems it wasn't your intention to imply it. Which is fine, I thought it was a strange thing to say.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I think this is one of the oldest balancing acts of the American experience. Clearly, there are wrong decisions out there ... clear examples include murdering, raping, etc. And clearly, it is correct to judge such behavior as wrong, legislate against it, and deny someone his/her freedom for doing it. So, wherever the line is drawn for ...

The obvious distinction between such crimes and suicide is the degree of harm such actions inflict on others. Of course, the suicide does inflict consequences on society, but those are a bit harder to define and quantify than those from a murder or rape; certainly, those consequences are lesser from a suicide.

Since there are negative consequences to society from my eating a bowl of Cocoa Puffs rather than an egg-white omelet for breakfast, an argument could be made for not selling me the Cocoa Puffs, or forbidding me to consume them. Clearly, I have made the "wrong" breakfast decision, and should be stopped from doing so. But how much harm have I done to society by, presumably, shortening my lifespan due to my food choices?

The balancing act is that of personal freedom (that dying concept) versus negative externalities. I believe that actions without significant negative externalities should fall within the scope of personal freedom, i.e., allowed. And in the case of a suicide, if a person ("rightly" or "wrongly") judges his life to be not worth living, then I don't see any real negative externality imposed on society by his suicide. Yes, if someone talked him down from the ledge, bucked him up, subjected him to months of intensive psychological counseling, and took him to a Thai brothel every week, he might regain his zest for life and eventually win the Nobel Prize. "Might" being the operative term here.

Quote: mkl654321

The obvious distinction between such crimes and suicide is the degree of harm such actions inflict on others. Of course, the suicide does inflict consequences on society, but those are a bit harder to define and quantify than those from a murder or rape; certainly, those consequences are lesser from a suicide.

Since there are negative consequences to society from my eating a bowl of Cocoa Puffs rather than an egg-white omelet for breakfast, an argument could be made for not selling me the Cocoa Puffs, or forbidding me to consume them. Clearly, I have made the "wrong" breakfast decision, and should be stopped from doing so. But how much harm have I done to society by, presumably, shortening my lifespan due to my food choices?

The balancing act is that of personal freedom (that dying concept) versus negative externalities. I believe that actions without significant negative externalities should fall within the scope of personal freedom, i.e., allowed. And in the case of a suicide, if a person ("rightly" or "wrongly") judges his life to be not worth living, then I don't see any real negative externality imposed on society by his suicide. Yes, if someone talked him down from the ledge, bucked him up, subjected him to months of intensive psychological counseling, and took him to a Thai brothel every week, he might regain his zest for life and eventually win the Nobel Prize. "Might" being the operative term here.

As best I can decipher this, I think we're saying the same thing. I'm not sure what has been added by what appears to be a restatement, but oh well.

I guess I'm just saying that "the line," wherever it is drawn, should fall south of "suicide-by-throwing-yourself-off-a-bridge-into-traffic" (meaning, that should be illegal) and north of "you-should-eat-egg-whites-instead-of-Cocoa-Puffs" (meaning, that should not be illegal). These are extreme and obvious examples, but they're useful in that they help bracket the problem, and subsequently might reveal an over-arching principal to follow, for not-so-clear issues like suicide-by-non-violent-means.

Interestingly, it also seems to re-state my thoughts on why the "good of Society" argument is a slippery slope and generally shouldn't be used as a principal in making laws, which I thought you disagreed with.

So basically, the impression you're giving me is, you say you disagree, but really you agree and for whatever reason just can't say, "I agree" and leave it at that. You certainly formulated your positions without my help, but the whole "I don't agree in THIS thread but I agree in THAT thread" thing is a little wierd.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

As best I can decipher this, I think we're saying the same thing. I'm not sure what has been added by what appears to be a restatement, but oh well.

I guess I'm just saying that "the line," wherever it is drawn, should fall south of "suicide-by-throwing-yourself-off-a-bridge-into-traffic" (meaning, that should be illegal) and north of "you-should-eat-egg-whites-instead-of-Cocoa-Puffs" (meaning, that should not be illegal). These are extreme and obvious examples, but they're useful in that they help bracket the problem, and subsequently might reveal an over-arching principal to follow, for not-so-clear issues like suicide-by-non-violent-means.

Interestingly, it also seems to re-state my thoughts on why the "good of Society" argument is a slippery slope and generally shouldn't be used as a principal in making laws, which I thought you disagreed with.

So basically, the impression you're giving me is, you say you disagree, but really you agree and for whatever reason just can't say, "I agree" and leave it at that. You certainly formulated your positions without my help, but the whole "I don't agree in THIS thread but I agree in THAT thread" thing is a little wierd.

First of all, a response to a post doesn't necessarily mean disagreement with that post. So whoa, Nelly.

The point of my most recent post was that the allowability of any act--suicide or anything else--should be judged by the negative externalities of that act. That's why there are many things allowed "in the privacy of one's own home" but not allowed in public. Where your and my points of view seem to diverge is that I seem to give a bit more weight to personal agency than you do--I perhaps have a higher threshold for what I consider a sufficient level of negative externality that an action should be considered unlawful. I also consider that there is such a thing as absolute freedom to perform actions that have no, or infinitesimal, negative externalities.

The slippery slope argument is flawed, but I see no reason why "the good of society" equates to that. We presumably have enough collective brainpower to decide whether an action that harms society in some incremental, negligible way should, in fact, be sanctioned. And those measuring sticks evolve over time. It would have been considered ludicrous in 1970 to ban smoking in public places (and interestingly enough, the eventual basis for smoking bans was based on smoking's effects on others' health, when the larger negative externality BY FAR was how unpleasant secondhand smoke is, not how unhealthy it is).

Quote: thecesspit

Well you removed the post you made, so it makes it hard for me to point out where you implied anyone who doesn't think there was a 9-11 conspiracy should jump off a bridge. Or at least point out where I've misunderstood your point.

Seems it wasn't your intention to imply it. Which is fine, I thought it was a strange thing to say.

Sorry I went way off on a big rant unrelated to this thread, I think you misread what I said, so I decided to cut the entire discussion before it turned into an argument.

If you want to discuss this please create a new thread named "What are the odds that everything that occured on 9-11-2001 were cause soley by the 19 hijackers?"

And then invite me to answer the question there. I'll paste back my rant there. I decided that I dont want to open any cans of worms by hijacking someone's thread, especially over this sensitive (albeit important) issue, and I ain't starting any threads about it.

My point about the nuke detontation is that structures like the Hoover damn itself might have been build for other puroposes. If the primary reason for the new bridge is WHAT THEY SAID it was for, it too was a lie. What was that, Mr. Paranoia? "Oh, nothing."

Quote: discflicker

My point about the nuke detontation is that structures like the Hoover damn itself might have been build for other puroposes. If the primary reason for the new bridge is WHAT THEY SAID it was for, it too was a lie.

And your evidence for this is....?

I don't have time or energy to debate the 9/11 truther movement or the 7th July denialists or all the other conspiracy theories out there. The last, I find the most odious for a variety of good reasons (which isn't where you were going anyways, but just to say... I've been there, done that, no good came of it).

But seriously there's two options:

a) they built a bridge to ease traffic congestion across the Hoover Dam and to improve security.
b) they built it for some other conspiratorial reason as well that we will never know because 1,000's of people can keep a secret and divert tonnes of dollars into building a bridge for no good reason.

Occam's razor means I'll go with A until other evidence is presented. This may mean I'm living in my safe little deluded world, but as I stated, I AM un-American, by both birth, upbringing and location, so maybe I just don't get it, or need to.

the answer is b

Your not going to give any further evidence for choosing B?

Ach well.

Quote: thecesspit

Your not going to give any further evidence for choosing B?

Ach well.

Proof? yes, please review my previous post in this thread;

a) they said the primary reason for it was not to relieve traffic, although it does that great and is great for the local economy and for the hydro-carbon burning US trucking based commerse as a whole, THEY SAID it was to prevent somone from haulin' a nuke in a vehicle over the damn and blowing it up.

b) see the study that proves the bridge would be an even better detonation point.

c) did they know this (of course)?


If the bridge was built because there was a shitload of money waiting to be spent for national recovery, is it possible the real reasons for the bridge to bebuilt were overshadowed by an issues of NATIONAL SECURITY? THAT's what got me off on the 9-11 rant.. exactly... DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!

If not for 9-11, would the "issue of national security" alone been enough reason to build the bridge, even if the BS story for it WERE true??? See why i relate the 2 issues?

Quote: discflicker

Proof? yes, please review my previous post in this thread;

a) they said the primary reason for it was not to relieve traffic, although it does that great and is great for the local economy and for the hydro-carbon burning US trucking based commerse as a whole, THEY SAID it was to prevent somone from haulin' a nuke in a vehicle over the damn and blowing it up.

b) see the study that proves the bridge would be an even better detonation point.

c) did they know this (of course)?


If the bridge was built because there was a shitload of money waiting to be spent for national recovery, is it possible the real reasons for the bridge to bebuilt were overshadowed by an issues of NATIONAL SECURITY? THAT's what got me off on the 9-11 rant.. exactly... DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!

If not for 9-11, would the "issue of national security" alone been enough reason to build the bridge, even if the BS story for it WERE true??? See why i relate the 2 issues?

DF:

I will get you started...

Your link to High Altitude explosions? Do you understand what "attenuated" means?

Quote: DF's High Altitude Link

Since blast is the shock wave transmitted through air, this is attenuated with height and is absent for explosions beyond the atmosphere.

You could pop off quite the explosion on the Tillman bridge, and the shock would be great. And amplified by the valley. But unfortunatly, the further away from some thing the blast is, the weaker it gets.

The amount of concrete in the dam is such that you would have to have a serious weapon to destroy it from the Tillman bridge.

The procedure for destroying nuclear silos was to have the war head plunge into the ground, borrow down 20-40 feet, then explode. Destroying the silo and the enclosed rocket. According to what you are saying, you should just blow the nuke 1 mile up and the silo is destroyed. No. Its just covered with dirt....

The engineering is that you explode a nuke over a city, at about 1 mile up, so that you kill people. So that all three effects are there, Blast, Radiation, and Flash. And at 1 mile up, you expand the kill zone. A nuke a ground level will not destroy as much as a nuke at 1 mile. You increase the size of the nuke, you can increase the height it explodes becasue you increase the kill zone...

And the first atomic explosion was in April 1945, and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in AUGUST 1945.

And BTW, I saw Transformers.... I KNOW what they are hiding in Hoover Dam...

SFB

Quote: SFB

DF:

And BTW, I saw Transformers.... I KNOW what they are hiding in Hoover Dam...

SFB

The thermite-laced metal from the WTC that was shippped away from the crime scene?

The Tillman/Callaghan bridge started it's environmental impact assessment in 1988, and plans for the bridge drawn up in July 2001... obviosuly 2 months before the WTC.

There are three reasons the bridge was built : improve travel times, replace the dangerous roadway, and reduce the possibility of an attack or accident at the dam site.

So yes, security was one of the reasons, BUT NOT the sole reason.

Building a $240 million bridge as a device to put a nuclear pay load over the dam seems... erm, I am SURE there's far cheaper and effective ways to blow up the dam by the federal government.

Quote: discflicker

The thermite-laced metal from the WTC that was shippped away from the crime scene?

Would this be the type of stuff:
thermite supplier

GlobalSpec allows you to get the stuff to. Pretty easy.

SFB