We can always hope.
Sounds like an incubator for SkyNet. 
Bollards. Lots and lots of bollards.
They also have the secondary advantage of taking out clueless phone-drones.
Basically suck it up, even if you were to retrofit camera’s in the vehicles that would kill the computer when facial recognition registers a person, or when it determines that its vision system is occluded, terrorists would seek another method. Toronto was picked because its a soft target and a fair amount of people going about their daily business, so target of opportunity.
They do target analysis like we do and identify weak points. We don’t know this whack jobs motivation or affiliation if any. I fully expect that CNN will deploy a media tactical team, lay down suppressive video coverage and barrage us with what ifs.
But as to the question posed, they are here in country and can pick the time, place and manner and all we can do is suck it up.
I’m not even convinced that he’s a terrorist, and some terrorists are people just resort to “terrorism” at a time when they’re at the very rock bottom of their lives. A guy with a history of mental instability isn’t a terrorist just because he watches a few ISIS videos and decides to shoot up a shopping mall before turning the gun on himself. The guys who buy a plane ticket to go live in the Levant fully aware that they are probably never going to see civilization again? Okay, yeah, maybe those guys are terrorists, but not every madman with a truck.
Imagine what would happen if someone drove such a truck in DC during, say, 4th of July when there are 100’s of thousands of people on the mall or walking about. I’ve seen huge crowds there or in other large cities at various celebrations (New York on New Years Eve, say). I agree with your point here…I think Little Nemo isn’t seeing the vast and horrific potential of something that seems to be gaining in popularity among the crazy or evil. 
Yeah, that seems like a really good idea, especially in cities and especially where really large crowds of people gather. I like the anti-drone potential as well 
This is obviously further out, but was also one of my first thoughts. I suppose in 10 or maybe 20 years, if this sort of thing does become common, it might actually push for a change over from human drivers to some sort of regulated and monitored automated system. It might actually make the transition easier and people less nervous if they come to fear human drivers more than they do the perceived loss of control on their part. Regardless, I think such an automated system would save a lot more lives than would be lost otherwise.
Pick any city in North America with a decent size mall at Christmas and bash through with a vehicle.
The latest report I read (a few hours ago now) gave basically zero details, so we know almost nothing at this point and shouldn’t jump to any conclusions. This guy could be a nut, could be an actual terrorist or could just be someone with control issues. This could still just be a really nasty accident or maybe the driver was impaired for some reason. Until we know more we shouldn’t speculate.
I did notice that the death toll is now 10 and more injured than the earlier report.
I live and work in Chicago and bollards are surrounding most important buildings like the federal courts (you can spin that picture around to see them…I walk that sidewalk almost daily), federal reserve and some other places.
That said they are far from everywhere and I am hard pressed to imagine them ending up everywhere.
The amount of Casualties trips the Terrorism flag, not the motive.
They are annoyed that we are alive, and would prefer that we are dead. Just like Adam Lanza, Stephen Paddock, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
I’m sure that you were being coy here, and have a point. Why not say it?
Too late to edit: Apparently he was pissed that he wasn’t getting laid. So I’m not sure what you propose to do about that.
If we’re going to make comparisons to firearms, then consider: Car companies really are working on “smart cars” that would prevent people from misusing them, and pretty much everyone thinks that that’s a pretty good idea, and it’s meeting no controversy at all. But if a gun manufacturer even thinks about doing the same thing, the NRA and their minions think that’s the Worst Thing Ever, and hound that company into bankruptcy.
Like that guy in Isla Vista California about four years ago who killed a bunch of people because of sexual frustration. So either that one was “terrorism” or this one was not. Which could make a mess of our whole classification system.
It’s terrorism if it is ideologically motivated and attempting to spread fear to gain some result.
If the above motive is confirmed there is kinda an ideology here, but it’s so far out in la-la land I have a hard time labeling a whackadoo of this sort a terrorist. This is more Charles Whitman territory, even if a few deranged “incels” around the internet decide to eventually label him a hero for striking out at the sexually successful oppressors keeping them down :rolleyes:.
“Terrorism” is defined as such because the violence has political aims. So things like Las Vegas and Columbine are not terrorism (at least I don’t think the Vegas shootings had political aims).
C’mon, people! No love for Priscila?
The Bataclan had more, and was a shooting. And the disgusting photos from that incident will not soon be forgotten by anyone who saw them. In fact, I am quite convinced that this attack and the others in Europe around the same timeframe, were a large factor in getting Donald Trump elected. Yes, even though they happened in Europe, people in America were glued to their TVs and computers witnessing the carnage in Europe caused by Islamic terrorism, and Trump capitalized on this fear very successfully.
According to Wikipedia, witnesses said they used hand grenades and had suicide vests that detonated as well.