Bridges

[red24]

Hello.
Which high bridges in Europe do not have suicide nets and barriers? And in USA? Thanks.

 

[Linda]

Hello.
Which high bridges in Europe do not have suicide nets and barriers? And in USA? Thanks.

The last time I was in Ronda, in Spain, there were no barriers. However, that was a long time ago, and I don't know whether the situation has changed. You would need to check for yourself.

 

[red24]

Thanks

 

[red24]

The last time I was in Ronda, in Spain, there were no barriers. However, that was a long time ago, and I don't know whether the situation has changed. You would need to check for yourself.

Do you think there are trees at the base of this bridge?

 

[Linda]

Do you think there are trees at the base of this bridge?

See for yourself. I think you would land on rock, unless you delibrately tried to land on trees. But it's easy to do a reconnaissance if you spend a day or two in Ronda. (It's a nice town, and well worth visiting, but go at the quiet time of year. In summer it's crammed with tourists and rather unpleasant.)

https://themostbeautifulplacesineurope.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ronda-bridge-below.jpg

 

[_AllCatsAreGrey_]

This bridge in Astoria, OR USA is the on the top of my list. Mostly nostalgia as it's where I grew up.



It has a clearance of 326 m (1070 ft). No suicide prevention nets. Open to bike traffic.

 

[_AllCatsAreGrey_]

Correction: the clearance below is 197 feet (60m). The info above is the span. That's what I get for trying to find info on my lunch break. lol

 

[red24]

Thank you. 60 m seems ok.
The Millau viaduct was my first choice, obviously, is the highest on Earth, but I reconsidered after some studies, seeing it has a lot of vegetation under, and I dont trust that even at terminal velocity.
However, landing on water seems worse than on trees, right? Worse in opposite sense, meaning, guaranteeing survival, right? Or not? Is it about the underwater currents?

 

[_AllCatsAreGrey_]

However, landing on water seems worse than on trees, right? Worse in opposite sense, meaning, guaranteeing survival, right? Or not? Is it about the underwater currents?

That's a great question. I look at it as a backup method - drowning if the impact on water doesn't do the job. This makes me want to look into the effect of hitting water from that height. I would imagine the flow of this river is strong. It's near the mouth of a major river.

I appreciate the questions and how they prompt me to further my research. Thanks!

Result from first search:
"Falling 60 meters (197 ft) into water at high velocity can have serious consequences, including broken bones, a compressed spine, concussion, and even death:
Impact: The force of the water can be strong enough to knock someone unconscious on impact.
Velocity: The upper limit of human tolerance to impact velocity in water is around 100 ft/sec (68.2 mph), which is the equivalent of a 186-foot free-fall.
Bones: The impact can break bones.
Spine: The impact can compress the spine.
Diaphragm: The impact can temporarily paralyze the diaphragm.
Drowning: Even if someone survives the impact, they may drown."

 

[red24]

Terminal velocity is like 270 km/h, I did the math some time ago. And is reachable after a free fall of ...160 m (?) I am not sure about the height but the speed is accurate, about 270, 272 km/h.

Most bridges do not have 160 m height, (clearance to water) but there are a few that do. However terminal speed is likely not necessary.

About landing on water I dont know. I dont trust water it seems that one could survive a fall in water. But..., but if the bridge is above something big, like The Marmara Sea, there must be currents there, also it should be real deep.