In addition to the devastating impact on the individual and their families, suicides on the roads can cause distress and harm to other people who might be involved in a collision or witness an attempt. Despite an increased focus on the characteristics and circumstances of road-related suicides, little is known about why people choose to end their lives in this way.

The aim of the current study was to investigate the factors prompting and deterring the decision to attempt suicide on the roads.

We conducted a secondary analysis of survey data, as well as seven in-depth qualitative interviews. Participants had lived experience of suicidal ideation or behaviour at a bridge or road location. We also carried out an online ethnography to explore interactions in different online communities relating to this method of suicide.

Participants perceived a road-related suicide to be quick, lethal, easy and accessible and to have the potential to appear accidental. The proportion of participants who described their thoughts and attempts as impulsive appeared to be higher than had been observed with other method choices. The potential impact on other people was a strongly dissuasive factor.

Measures designed to prevent access to potentially lethal sites may be particularly important, given that many participants described their thoughts and behaviour as impulsive. In addition, fostering a culture of care and consideration for other road users may help to dissuade people from taking action on the roads.

For every suicide on the British railway network, at least six potential attempts are interrupted by front-line staff or rail commuters. However, the factors that maximise or hinder the likelihood and effectiveness of such interventions are poorly understood.

The aim of the current study was to shed light on the experience of intervening to prevent a suicide at a railway location, including how and why people intervene, and their feelings and reflections in the aftermath.

In-depth interviews were carried out with rail commuters (n = 11) and front-line railway staff (n = 10) who had intervened to stop a suicide by train. Data were analysed thematically.

Participants had intervened to prevent suicide in several ways, both from afar (e.g. by calling a member of staff) and more directly (verbally or non-verbally), in some cases with no prior training or experience in suicide prevention, and often as a ‘quick, gut reaction’ given the limited time to intervene. In more ‘reasoned’ interventions, poor confidence and concerns around safety were the greatest barriers to action. Although often privy to their final outcome, most participants reflected positively on their intervention/s, stressing the importance of training and teamwork, as well as small talk and non-judgemental listening.

Suicides in railway environments can present bystanders with little time to intervene. Potential interveners should therefore be resourced as best as possible through clear infrastructure help/emergency points, visibility of station staff and training for gatekeepers.