Title:

A suicide barrier on a bridge and its impact on suicide rates in Toronto: a

natural experiment

Authors:

Mark Sinyor, resident physician1, Anthony J Levitt, psychiatrist-in-chief2

1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto. 250 College Street, Toronto, Canada, M5T

1R8.

2. Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Women’s College

Hospital. 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Canada, M4N 3M5.

Correspondence to M Sinyor 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Canada, M4N 3M5, Tel.:416-480-

4089; Fax:416-480-6878; E-mail: mark.sinyor@utoronto.ca

The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf

of all authors, an exclusive licence on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to

permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ editions and any other BMJPGL products

and sublicences such use and exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence.

1
We thank Dr. James Edwards, Regional Supervising Coroner for Toronto East, and the entire

staff at the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario, including Dorothy Zwolakowski, June

Lindsell, Tina Baker and Karen Bridgman-Acker, without whom this research would not have

been possible. We further thank Dr. Ian Johnson and the Determinants of Community Health

course at the University of Toronto Medical School for facilitating the genesis of this project.

Finally, we thank Dr. Alex Kiss of the Department of Research Design and Biostatistics at

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre for performing some of the statistical analyses as well as Dr.

Donald Redelmeier, Director of the Clinical Epidemiology Unit at Sunnybrook Health Sciences

Centre and Dr. David Streiner, Senior Scientist at the Kunin-Lunenfeld Applied Research Unit at

Baycrest for their advice and counsel.

Contributors: MS developed the idea for this study. MS contributed to the design of the study,

analysed the data, interpreted the results, and drafted the manuscript. AJL contributed to the

design of the study, interpreted the results, and critically revised the manuscript. MS is guarantor.

Funding: This study did not receive funding.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at

www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and

declare that: MS reports no competing interests. AJL has acted as a consultant for Janssen

Ortho, Biovail Corp, and Eli Lilly Canada.

Ethical Approval: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of

Toronto, Toronto Canada.

Data sharing: No additional data available.

2
All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study

and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

ABSTRACT

Objective To determine whether suicide rates in Toronto changed after a suicide barrier was

erected at the Bloor Street Viaduct, the bridge with the second highest yearly rate of suicide by

jumping in the world next to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

Design A natural experiment.

Setting City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, Canada; records at the Office of the Chief

Coroner of Ontario from 1993-2001 (9 years pre-barrier) and from July 2003-June 2007 (4 years

post-barrier)

Participants Individuals who died by suicide in the city of Toronto and in the rest of the

Canadian Province of Ontario.

Main outcome measures Changes in yearly rates of suicide by jumping at the Bloor Street

Viaduct, other bridges, buildings and by other means.

Results Yearly rates of suicide by jumping in Toronto were unchanged between the pre-barrier

and post-barrier periods (56.4/year vs. 56.6/year, p=0.95). There were 9.3 suicides/year at the

Bloor Street Viaduct pre-barrier and none post-barrier (p<0.01). Rates of suicide by jumping

from other bridges and buildings were higher in the post-barrier period though only former result

was statistically significant (other bridges: 8.7/year vs. 14.2/year, p=0.01; buildings: 38.5/year

vs. 42.7/year, p=0.32).

3
Conclusions Although the barrier prevented suicides at the Bloor Street Viaduct, there was no

change in the rate of suicide by jumping in Toronto. This lack of change in the overall rate of

suicide by jumping may have been due to a reciprocal increase in suicides from other bridges and

buildings. This suggests that the Bloor Street Viaduct was not a uniquely attractive location for

suicide and that suicide barriers on bridges like the Bloor Street Viaduct may not alter absolute

suicide rates by jumping when there are other comparable bridges nearby.

INTRODUCTION

It is well recognized that by restricting access to a means of suicide it may be possible to

delay or even prevent suicide among vulnerable individuals.1 This principle has been

demonstrated in the United Kingdom with successful programs to reduce suicides by switching

to carbon monoxide-free sources of gas,2 restricting package sizes of acetaminophen and

salicylates3,4 and introducing catalytic converters into cars.5 In each case, implementing a

relatively simple strategy was shown to result in reductions in suicide rates. Canada and New

Zealand have both seen decreases in firearm-related suicides after the enactment of gun control

legislation6,7 though some evidence suggests that while fewer Canadians died by suicide using

firearms, these reductions were matched by increases in suicides by other methods such as

jumping.8,9

Suicide barriers to prevent jumping have been established at the Empire State Building,

the Eiffel Tower and a number of bridges worldwide.10,11 Recent arguments in favour of barriers

on suicide bridges stem from studies in the 1970s examining survivors of suicide attempts at the

4
Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, the suicide hotspot with the highest annual rate of suicide

by jumping in the world.10 In one study, four of six surviving jumpers said that they would not

have attempted suicide at any location other than the Golden Gate Bridge and all six favoured the

construction of a suicide barrier at the bridge.12 Another study of 515 individuals who had been

prevented from jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge found that only 6% of them had gone on

to suicide at a later time.13 Despite this evidence, a recent U.S. telephone survey found that 74%

of respondents believed that most or all individuals prevented from suicide by a barrier at the

Golden Gate Bridge would find another way to complete suicide.14 Several studies looking at the

introduction of suicide barriers at the Memorial Bridge in Augusta, Maine,15 and the Clifton

Suspension Bridge in Bristol, England16 as well as the introduction of a safety net at Muenster

Terrace in Bern, Switzerland17 found reductions in suicides at each of these locations (decreases

of 0.6/year, 4.2/year and 2.5/year respectively). Each article examined the change in rates of

suicides by jumping from nearby bridges and/or buildings and concluded that little, if any,

location substitution was occurring. However, these studies lack statistical power due to the

relatively small yearly decreases in suicides at each bridge as well as low rates of suicide in

general. No study of a suicide barrier has demonstrated a statistically significant drop in overall

suicide rates in the vicinity.

For more than a decade, there has been debate as to whether a suicide barrier would work

in Toronto, Canada. The Bloor Street Viaduct, spanning two major thoroughfares, was erected

in 1919 in downtown Toronto and at least 400 people have jumped to their deaths from it.18 It is

a double-decked arched bridge with five lanes of roadway above a subway and is 490 meters in

length and 40 meters in height above the two freeways and valley below.19 With about 10

suicides per year from 1993-2002 (baseline data from this study), the Bloor Street Viaduct had

5
the dubious distinction of being the second most popular suicide bridge studied in the world

behind the Golden Gate Bridge.10 A suicide-prevention barrier was constructed at the Bloor

Street Viaduct between April 2002 and June 2003. The barrier is approximately 5 meters in

height and consists of thousands of thin steel rods spaced closely together supported externally

by an angled steel frame.20 It is not known whether the barrier has had any impact on Toronto’s

overall rate of suicides and on the rate of suicides by jumping. The current study aims to

examine coroner’s data, both pre-barrier and post-barrier, to determine if there has been any

change in suicide rates and whether or not people have substituted different locations or methods

for the Bloor Street Viaduct.

METHODS

Study design

Records at the Office of the Chief Coroner (OCC) of Ontario covering all suicides in Ontario

during the period 1 January 1993 to 30 June 2007 were examined for this study. To be included

in the data collection, the death had to be ruled a suicide by the OCC according to the standard of

a balance of probabilities. Given the large number of charts, it was not possible to examine

deaths ruled as having other causes (e.g. accident, misadventure, homicide). Staff at the OCC

ran a search which provided a spreadsheet listing all of the cases coded as suicides in Ontario for

each year in the study. It takes approximately two years for the OCC to close all cases (i.e. the

complete 2007 data was only available in 2009). The following information was included in the

spreadsheet: date of suicide, age, gender, region, municipality and cause of death (e.g. fall/jump

from height, hanging, shooting etc.). Suicides were then grouped into the following categories:

6
All suicides in Ontario (excluding Toronto), all suicides in Toronto, suicides in Toronto by

jumping (where jumping implies from a height – i.e. subway jumpers do not fall into this

category) and suicides in Toronto by means other than jumping. Charts were examined for all

Toronto suicides coded as “fall/jump from height” to determine whether the suicide was from a

bridge or a building. The name and location of the bridge from which the deceased jumped was

also obtained.

The barrier was under construction from April 2002-June 2003 (as per correspondence

between the OCC and Mike Laidlaw, one of the barrier’s engineers). Accordingly, the 9 years

from 1993-2001 were classified as “pre-barrier” and the 4 years from July 1, 2003-June 30, 2007

were classified as “post-barrier”. Postal codes of home residence for individuals who jumped to

their deaths from bridges were obtained for 1999-2001 and July 1, 2003-June 30, 2007 to

determine if there was any change in the region from which they came.

Census data was also obtained from Statistics Canada for the years 1996, 2001 and 2006 to

determine the population of Ontario and Toronto.21 These data were used to correct suicide rates

for population over time. Linear population growth was assumed for the periods 1996-2001 and

2001-2006. Population growth from 1993-1996 and 2006-June 2007 was estimated by

extrapolating backwards and forwards respectively.

This research received ethics approval by the University of Toronto research ethics board.

Statistical analysis

7
 Poisson regression analyses were conducted to examine differences between pre-barrier

and post-barrier suicide rates. Demographic data were analyzed using two-tailed, independent

sample t tests for continuous variables and 2-sided chi-squared tests for categorical variables.

Postal code data were analyzed using a 1-sided chi-squared test with the hypothesis that more

individuals would travel from outside the city limits to die by suicide at the Bloor Street Viaduct

(pre-barrier) than at other bridges in the post-barrier period. Statistical significance was set at

p=.05.

RESULTS

Suicide Rates

Rates of suicide by jumping in Toronto were statistically identical pre- and post-barrier

(56.4/year vs. 56.6/year, p=0.95) (Table 1)(Figure 1). There were 9.3 suicides/year from the

Bloor Street Viaduct prior to the barrier’s construction and none at that location from the period

July 2003- June 2007 (p<0.01) (Figure 2). Post-barrier in Toronto, there was a statistically

significant increase in suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct

(8.7/year vs. 14.2/year, p=0.01) and a non-statistically significant increase in suicides by jumping

from buildings (38.5/year vs. 42.7/year, p=0.32). In 2002, the year during which the majority

of barrier construction took place, there were 63 suicides by jumping in Toronto of which 30

were from bridges and 19 from the Bloor Street Viaduct.

Both the overall rate of suicides in Toronto and the rate of suicides by means other than

jumping decreased by 28 suicides/year in the post-barrier period (All Toronto suicides:

8
253.4/year vs. 225.4/year, p=0.05; Toronto suicides by other means: 197.0/year vs. 168.8/year

p=0.04). The decrease in overall rate of suicide in Toronto bordered on statistical significance

while the decrease in the rate of suicides by other means was significant. The overall rate of

suicides in Ontario (excluding Toronto) also decreased significantly in the post-barrier period

(836.4/year vs. 752.5/year p=0.01).

Demographics

People who died by suicide by other means post-barrier in Toronto were older than those

who did so in the pre-barrier period (48.0 vs. 45.8 yrs, p<0.01)(Table 2). There were no other

statistically significant age or gender differences between the pre- and post-barrier periods in

Toronto. People who jumped to their deaths in Toronto tended to be younger than those who did

so by other means both pre-barrier and post-barrier. Furthermore, among people who jumped to

their deaths, those who jumped from bridges tended to be younger and more predominantly male

than those who jumped from buildings.

Of the 57 people who jumped to their deaths from Toronto bridges from 1999-2001 (pre-

barrier), only 2 people were known to reside outside the city limits and both jumped at the Bloor

Street Viaduct (Table 3). Of the 61 bridge jumpers from July 2003-June 2007 (post-barrier), 9

lived outside the city limits. More individuals travelled from outside the city limits to die by

jumping from bridges post-barrier than pre-barrier (p=0.049).

DISCUSSION

9
 To demonstrate that the Bloor Street Viaduct suicide barrier achieved the aims of its

advocates, one has to show that it prevented suicides at that location and that there were no

reciprocal increases in suicides by jumping at other locations or by other means. Based on the

first criterion, the barrier was a resounding success with no suicides there in the post-barrier

period of July 2003- June 2007. Clearly something about the barrier’s architectural design, its

aesthetic and/or the publicity surrounding its construction was sufficient to dissuade individuals

considering suicide at the Bloor Street Viaduct. This result is in keeping with previous work

showing that barriers help to prevent suicides at the location where they are placed.15-18,22-23 The

overall rate of suicide in Ontario decreased significantly in the post-barrier period. A similar

trend was observed in Toronto with a decrease in the overall suicide rate which bordered on

significance. This decrease in Toronto’s overall suicide rate of 28 suicides/year was

accompanied by a statistically significant decrease of the same number of suicides/year by means

other than jumping. There was no reduction in the yearly rate of suicide by jumping in Toronto.

Indeed, suicides from other bridges in Toronto showed a statistically significant increase of 5.5

suicides/year post-barrier (a 63% increase from the pre-barrier rate of 8.7 suicides/year).

Comparing this figure to the 9.3 fewer suicides per year at the Bloor Street Viaduct post-barrier,

one might speculate that the majority of individuals who would otherwise have jumped at the

Bloor Street Viaduct chose to do so at other bridges. Increases in suicides by jumping from

buildings may account for the remainder although, perhaps due to the small numbers involved,

these increases did not reach statistical significance.

There are several ways to account for the finding that rates of suicide by jumping did not

decrease in Toronto after the barrier was erected. One possible explanation is that suicide

barriers on bridges are simply not effective in decreasing overall suicide rates due to location

10
substitution. As mentioned, no study of a suicide barrier has been able to demonstrate a

statistically significant drop in overall suicide rates in the vicinity. Of note, a study of the

removal of a suicide barrier on the Grafton Bridge in Auckland, New Zealand found that suicides

there increased significantly. However, suicides by jumping from other locations decreased by

the same number resulting in an unchanged total rate of suicide by jumping.22 As mentioned, the

suggestion that suicide barriers on bridges would be effective comes from studies conducted in

San Francisco, however these studies examined individuals who had either jumped from the

Golden Gate Bridge and survived12 or those who had contemplated suicide or made a suicidal

gesture there and had thereby come to the attention of the police or an emergency room.13 These

two groups may be qualitatively different from individuals who have been prevented from

jumping at a location due to a physical barrier alone. Though some have argued that bridge

barriers are effective suicide prevention tools,24 the evidence in the literature in favour of such

barriers reducing absolute rates of suicide when there are other available buildings or bridges is

weak, in part due to the scarcity of bridges with pre-barrier suicide rates of sufficient magnitude

to make statistical calculations plausible.

A second explanation for the effect observed here is that barriers do decrease rates in

some instances but that there is something specific about the circumstances in Toronto that led to

the barrier failing to decrease overall rates of suicide by jumping. The argument for putting a

barrier on a notorious bridge as a suicide prevention tool is predicated on the idea that

individuals contemplating suicide have a preference for that bridge over others in the area.

“Suicide magnet” may be a particularly apt term that has been used to describe suicide bridges in

the sense that different “magnets” have the ability to exert different amounts of pull and

presumably, the more pull a “magnet” exerts the less interchangeable it is with other locations.

11
The evidence presented here demonstrates that the Bloor Street Viaduct, despite being the second

most popular bridge for suicide, was a relatively weak “magnet”. There are a number of factors

that might make a bridge a stronger “magnet”. Ease of pedestrian access, perceived lethality of a

jump off the bridge and unique geographical features such as a bridge over water might all be

important factors which might influence an individual’s preference for one bridge over another.

The Bloor Street Viaduct is easily accessed, jumps from the bridge are highly lethal and it is over

major highways. However, there are numerous other bridges in Toronto which fit this

description. Another consideration would be the bridge’s aesthetic and that of the surrounding

environment. While the Bloor Street Viaduct was likely viewed as an impressive structure when

completed in 1918, it is not aesthetically grand by 21st century standards and there are nearby

bridges of similar scale and that afford a similar view. A final consideration is the notoriety of

the bridge. While the Bloor Street Viaduct is a sufficiently notorious suicide location to have

become a minor pop culture reference, notably being featured in a song by the Barenaked

Ladies25 and a book by Michael Ondaatje26, it is not a cultural icon like the Golden Gate Bridge.

Images and news about the Bloor Street Viaduct are not ubiquitous in Toronto in comparison to

the Golden Gate Bridge. While one of the surviving jumpers in San Francisco noted that for him

“it was the Golden Gate Bridge or nothing”, 12 one wonders whether anyone would make such a

bold statement about the Bloor Street Viaduct. One indicator of whether a bridge might hold that

degree of importance for individuals contemplating suicide is if they choose to travel large

distances to die by jumping at that location. For example, when the Gateway Bridge was opened

in Brisbane, Australia, it became a “suicide magnet” after a well publicized suicide jump in front

of a large crowd at the bridge’s opening ceremony. Notably, 100% of individuals who

subsequently died by jumping suicide at that location traveled there from outside the city core

12
compared to only 38% of individuals who died by jumping from a nearby bridge.27 However,

this pattern was not observed with the Bloor Street Viaduct. Indeed, postal code data show that

significantly more people traveled from outside the city limits to jump from other bridges in the

post-barrier period than to jump from the Bloor Street Viaduct in the pre-barrier period

(p=0.049).

A third explanation is that the Bloor Street Viaduct suicide barrier could have decreased

rates of suicide by jumping under different circumstances. It is important to note that the barrier

was a standalone intervention. It has been argued that optimal suicide prevention programs

involve comprehensive strategies to provide education, combat stigma and improve accessibility

of services to individuals contemplating suicide.28 It is unclear whether a different result would

have been observed if the Bloor Street Viaduct suicide barrier had been part of a more

comprehensive suicide prevention program for suicide by jumping in Toronto. Furthermore, at

least one prominent newspaper article published shortly after the barrier’s construction

speculated that it did not prevent suicides because individuals were jumping at other locations.29

In September 2003, the article reported that one individual had contemplated suicide at the Bloor

Street Viaduct but, discovering the barrier, had walked to a nearby bridge and jumped to his

death there. While results of the present study would seem to agree with the article’s assertion, it

is also possible that the article itself may have influenced individuals contemplating suicide to

consider other bridges. Moreover, it could have contributed to a widespread public belief in the

inevitability of suicide which may have further dissuaded suicidal individuals from seeking help.

This article and other media reports on suicide may have influenced suicide rates and could have

contributed to the observation that rates of suicide by jumping did not change in the post-barrier

period. It is interesting to note that the two years with the highest number of suicides at the

13
Bloor Street Viaduct during the study (19 suicides) were 1998 and 2002, the year in which the

coroner’s inquest into suicide at the Bloor Street Viaduct occurred and the year in which the

barrier was constructed respectively. This suggests that, at least in those instances, publicity may

have influenced patterns of suicide by jumping in Toronto.

Whether the Bloor Street Viaduct suicide barrier has had an impact on factors other

than rates of completed suicide is outside the scope of this research. Nonetheless, it is important

to note that there may be other reasons why one might want to prevent suicides at a particular

location. Several of the charts reviewed for this study noted vehicular trauma to the bodies of the

deceased. This underscores the fact that there may be social consequences to people jumping

onto busy highways including psychological or physical morbidity as well as mortality risk to

bystanders as a result of motor vehicle collisions, damage to property, disruption to travel

networks and impact on the economy. By eliminating all suicides at the Bloor Street Viaduct in

the post-barrier period, the suicide barrier prevented such negative social consequences from

occurring at that location. However, it may be that there was an increase in similar negative

outcomes at other bridges and buildings where suicides increased.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The Bloor Street Viaduct suicide barrier is a fascinating natural experiment. It provides

what is perhaps the best scenario for testing whether such a barrier is effective because it had the

second highest yearly rate of suicides next to the Golden Gate Bridge and because, unlike other

locations such as San Francisco, no bridges in Toronto span large bodies of water, meaning that

essentially all suicides by jumping in Toronto come to the attention of the coroner and are

recorded. Furthermore, demographic data for individuals who have jumped to their deaths from

14
the Bloor Street Viaduct (median age 36, 79% male) were similar to data recently reported for

Golden Gate Bridge jumpers (median age 40, 74% male).21 However, as in any natural

experiment, this research comes with many uncontrolled variables. First, despite the relatively

high rate of suicides by jumping at this site, the absolute numbers may have been too low to

achieve adequate power in a study of this kind. Second, despite the relative comprehensiveness

of the OCC records, it is possible that suicide rates by all causes were over-estimated and/or

under-estimated in the pre-barrier and/or post-barrier period due to incompleteness or inaccuracy

of records kept by the OCC. Third, there is the possibility of bias in the OCC records because

deceased individuals found beneath certain bridges or indeed after falling from any bridge or

building may be more likely to have been ruled as having died by suicide than by other causes

such as misadventure, homicide or accidental death. Finally, it is also possible that an ecological

fallacy is operating. Suicide in itself is a rare event and suicides by jumping are uncommon to an

even greater extent. Despite the remarkably stable number of suicides by jumping in Toronto

pre-barrier, one cannot discount the possibility that rates of suicide at other bridges increased

post-barrier for reasons other than location substitution. These might include chance fluctuations

in rates, economic changes, social changes or other means restriction interventions. It is

conceivable that the barrier did lead to a reduction in suicides but that this was masked by one or

more of these uncontrolled variables.

Conclusions

There were no suicides at the Bloor Street Viaduct in the four years after the construction

of a suicide barrier; however suicide rates by jumping in Toronto were unchanged due to a

15
statistically significant rise in suicides by jumping from other bridges and a non-significant rise

in suicides by jumping from buildings. This suggests that the availability of the Bloor Street

Viaduct was not an essential element for suicide among individuals contemplating suicide by

jumping in Toronto. The authors speculate that a different result may be observed if a bridge

holds a more powerful influence on suicidal individuals. This may be the case for the Golden

Gate Bridge in San Francisco for example, though further evidence is needed. A safety net

might be installed at the Golden Gate Bridge in the near future,24 so it may be possible to

undertake research similar to the present study in San Francisco. However, there may be greater

logistical challenges since the major bridges in San Francisco are over water making it more

difficult to obtain accurate suicide counts. This research demonstrates that constructing a suicide

barrier on a bridge with a high pre-barrier rate of suicide by jumping is likely to dramatically

reduce or eliminate suicides at that bridge but that it may not alter absolute suicide rates by

jumping when there are other comparable bridges nearby.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

There is clear evidence that barriers decrease or eliminate suicides at bridges commonly used

for suicide by jumping.

No study has demonstrated a statistical drop in overall suicide rates after a barrier was

erected on a bridge.

It is unclear whether barriers prevent suicides or simply divert individuals to other bridges or

means.

16
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

There were no suicides at the Bloor Street Viaduct in Toronto, previously the bridge with the

second highest yearly rate of suicide next to the Golden Gate Bridge, after a barrier was

erected.

Suicide rates were unchanged due to a corresponding increase in jumps from other bridges

and buildings in the area.

This suggests that barriers may not decrease suicide rates when other, similar jumping

locations are available though we speculate that the Golden Gate Bridge might be an

exception given evidence that it holds a special meaning for some individuals contemplating

suicide.

REFERENCES

1. Gunnell D, Middleton N, Frankel S. Method availability and the prevention of suicide: a

re-analysis of secular trends in England and Wales 1950-1975. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr

Epidemiol 2000;35:437-443.

2. Kreitman N. The coal gas story: United Kingdom suicide rates, 1960–1971. Br J Prev

Soc Med. 1976;30(2):86–93.

3. Hawton K, Simkin S, Deeks J, et al. UK legislation on analgesic packs: before and after

study of long term effect on poisonings. BMJ 2004;329:1076-1079.

17
4. Hawton, K, Townsend, E, Deeks, J. et al. Effects of legislation restricting pack sizes of

paracetamol and salicylate on self poisoning in the UK: before and after study. BMJ

2001;322: 1203-1207.

5. Amos T, Appleby L, Kiernan K. Changes in rates of suicide by car exhaust asphyxiation

in England and Wales. Psychol Med 2001;31(5):935-9.

6. Beautrais AL, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. Firearms legislation and reductions in

firearm-related suicide deaths in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of

Psychiatry 2006;40:253-259.

7. Leenaars AA, Moksony F, Lester D, Wenckstern S. The impact of gun control (Bill C-

51) on suicide in Canada. Death Stud 2003;27(2):103-24.

8. Sloan JH, Rivara FP, Reay DT, Ferris JA, Kellermann AL. Firearm regulations and rates

of suicide. A comparison of two metropolitan areas. N Engl J Med 1990;322(6):369-73.

9. Rich CL, Young JG, Fowler RC, Wagner J, Black NA. Guns and suicide: possible effects

of some specific legislation. Am J Psychiatry. 1990;147(3):342-6.

10. Gunnell D, Nowers M. Suicide by jumping. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1997;96(1)1-

6.

11. Zarkowski, Paul. The aurora bridge. American Journal of Psychiatry 2008;165(9) 1126.

12. Rosen DH. Suicide survivors. A follow-up study of persons who survived jumping from

the Golden Gate and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridges. Western Journal of Medicine

1975;122(4):289-94.

13. Seiden RH. Where are they now? A follow-up study of suicide attempters from the

Golden Gate Bridge. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior 1978;8(4):203-16.

18
14. Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Belief in the inevitability of suicide: results from a

national survey. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 2006;36:1-11.

15. Pelletier AR. Preventing suicide by jumping: the effect of a bridge safety fence. Injury

Prevention 2007;13:57–59.

16. Bennewith O, Nowers M, Gunnell D. Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge,

England, on local patterns of suicide: Implications for prevention. British Journal of

Psychiatry 2007;190(3):266-267.

17. Reisch T, Michel K. Securing a Suicide Hot Spot: Effects of a Safely Net at the Bern

Muenster Terrace. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 2005;35(4): 460-467.

18. Glenn WM. The Magnet and the Veil. MD Canada 2003; May/June:36-42.

19. Bloor Street Viaduct suicide barrier designed. University of Waterloo News Release.

(Accessed April 1,2010 at http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/archive/news.php?id=2379)

20. The Luminous Veil Prince Edward Viaduct Safety Barriers. University of Waterloo

School of Architecture (Accessed April 1,2010

http://www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/faculty_projects/terri/steel/veil.html)

21. Population and dwelling counts for Toronto and Ontario. Statistics Canada. (Accessed

April 1, 2010, at http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/)

22. Beautrais AL. Effectiveness of barriers at suicide jumping sites: a case study. Australian

and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2001;35:557-562.

23. Beautrais AL. Gibb SJ. Fergusson DM. Horwood LJ. Larkin GL. Removing bridge

barriers stimulates suicides: an unfortunate natural experiment. Aust N Z J Psychiatry.

2009;43(6):495-7.

19
24. Blaustein M, Fleming A. Suicide from the Golden Gate Bridge. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 2009: 166(10):1111-6.

25. Barenaked Ladies. War on drugs. In: Everything to Everyone. Reprise Records, 2003.

26. Ondaatje M. In the skin of a lion. Vintage Canada, 1996.

27. Cantor CH, Hill MA. Suicide from river bridges. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1990;24(3):377-

80.

28. Cole-King A, Lepping P. Suicide mitigation: time for a more realistic approach. BJGP.

2010; 60,570:3-4.

29. Harding K. The new suicide bridge. The Globe and Mail. September 6, 2003:M1.

20
 Table 1. Poisson Regression Analysis of Yearly Suicide Rates by Jumping and by Other Means in Ontario and Toronto Pre-Barrier

(1993-2001) and Post-Barrier (July 2003-June 2007).

Subgroup Suicides Pre-barrier Suicides Post-barrier Regression Standard p IRR (95% Cl)†

Coefficient Error
Mean Number Per Year Mean Number Per Year

Observed Corrected* Observed Corrected*

Ontario (excluding Toronto) 880.1 836.4 887.5 752.5 -0.11 0.04 0.01 0.90 (0.83 to 0.98)

Toronto (total) 261.2 253.4 241.8 225.4 -0.12 0.06 0.05 0.89 (0.79 to 1.00)

Jumping 58.2 56.4 60.8 56.6 0.00 0.08 0.95 1.00 (0.87 to 1.17)

Building 39.7 38.5 45.8 42.7 0.10 0.10 0.32 1.11 (0.90 to 1.36)

Bridge 18.6 17.9 15.3 14.2 -0.23 0.19 0.22 0.79 (0.55 to 1.15)

Bloor Street Viaduct 9.6 9.3 0 0 -2.92 0.89 <0.01 0.05 (0.01 to 0.31)

Other Bridges 9.0 8.7 15.3 14.2 0.49 0.19 0.01 1.64 (1.13 to 2.39)

Other Means 203.0 197.0 180.8 168.8 -0.15 0.08 0.04 0.86 (0.74 to 0.99)
*Corrected per capita to suicides per 1993 population; not age-standardized

† Incidence Rate Ratio of suicides post-barrier compared to pre-barrier; df=11

21
22
 Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Individuals Who Died by Suicide by Jumping and by Other Means in Toronto Pre-Barrier

(1993-2001) and Post-Barrier (July 2003-June 2007)

Suicides by Jumping Suicide by Jumping Suicide by Suicide by Other Statistical

Building Bloor Street Viaduct Jumping Other Means (Non- Comparison

Bridges Jumping) Across Rows*

A B

C D

Pre-barrier Mean Age in Years (SD) 43.5 (18) 38.1 (12.5) 38.6 (15.6) 45.8 (17.4) D>A>B=C
Post-barrier Mean Age in Years (SD) 45.8 (17.8) - 38.5 (13.6) 48.0 (17.2) D=A>C
Pre-barrier vs. Post-barrier comparison* Non significant Non significant Significant
Pre-barrier Number of Males (%) 357 (59.4) 86 (79.3) 81 (78.5) 1827 (70.7) B=C>D>A
Post-barrier Number of Males (%) 183 (64.5) - 61 (72.1) 723 (70.1) C=D=A
Pre-barrier vs. Post-barrier comparison* Non significant - Non significant Non significant
*Significant if p<0.05

Table 3. Location of Last Known Residence of People Who Died by Jumping from Toronto Bridges Pre-Barrier (1993-2001) and

Post-Barrier (July 2003-June 2007)*†

23
 Location of Residence Pre-barrier Post-barrier

N=57 N=61
Suicide by jumping from Suicide by jumping from
Suicide by jumping from
Bloor Street Viaduct other bridges
other bridges
N (% pre-barrier) N (% pre-barrier)
N (% post-barrier)
Toronto 17 (29.8%) 23 (40.4%) 41 (67.2%)
Suburbs or Beyond 2 (3.5%) 0 (0%) 9 (14.8%)
No Fixed Address/Unknown 4 (7.0%) 11 (19.3%) 11 (18.0%)
*Postal codes were only available for this analysis from 1999 onwards

† More individuals travelled from outside the city limits in the post-barrier period, chi-squared=3.8, df=1, p=0.049

24
 Figure 1: Toronto Suicides by Jumpingand by Other Means Pre-
Barrier (1993-2001) and Post-Barrier (July 2003 - June 2007)*

250
Other means
200
Jumping
#of suicides

150

100

50

0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

25
*Corrected per capita to suicides per 1993 population; not age-standardized

26
 Figure 2: Toronto Suicides by Jumpingfromthe Bloor Street
Viaduct and Other Bridges Pre-Barrier (1993-2001) and Post-
25 Barrier (July 2003 - June 2007)*

Bloor Street
20
Viaduct
#of suicides

15 Other Bridges

10

0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

*Corrected per capita to suicides per 1993 population; not age-standardized

27