I’ve had nightmares about this scenario, enhanced further by adding spinning blades (like a war chariot) and other lethal additions (flamethrowers?) to the vehicle. Add in a power plant and tires big enough to go through anything…
Bollards can also be designed to be removable to allow service or emergency vehicles to pass but be locked in place to prevent unauthorized vehicles from driving in pedestrian areas. The placement of bollards and other barriers to protect courtyards and other pedestrian areas, and removable bollards on streets that are closed for public events such as fairs and farmers markets is a pretty standard safety practice on new construction.
Trees and other greenspace additions are welcome for any number of reasons for aesthetics, natural shade, et cetera, but they don’t make for a very reliable barrier.
Stranger
Has anyone tried a hybrid approach wrt bollards and trees combined? I know one objection to trees up thread was that you can’t get them close enough together, but seems to me you could plant some large trees and in the spaces between put in bollards, saving some money. Removable bollards would be great too for when you do need to access the areas in question.
This certainly explains why the world’s armed forces have stopped issuing rifles and just put all their solders in rented vans.
Trees not inexpenesive; a tree tall enough that the lowest branches allow passage for pedestrians will have a purchase cost of several hundred dollars, and requires an excavation large enough for a rootball versus boring a hole of six or eight inches into existing concrete for a bollard anchor. Trees require seasonal trimming, irrigation, and other care, which are additional maintenance costs versus stainless steel or powder coated bollards which can serve for decades with no maintenance. Trees do not a very good barrier until after several years of growth (both in diameter of the trunk and extent of the root ball, and a tree that is in a pedestrian path will require a protective cage to prevent incidential damage or deliberate vandalism. As a tree grows, the root system will expand and push up against the pavement above creating a walking hazard, which requires periodic removal and replacement.
Bollards are specifically designed to allow selective passage of pedestrians and bicyclists with ease of removal and replacement if they are damaged or need to allow passage for vehicles. The standard use of bollards in new construction to isolate pedestrian areas from roadways and parking areas is done because it is a convenient, flexible, and relatively inexpensive way to assure public safety. The placement of trees, bushes, and other greenspace features such as natural ponds are appealing and should be encouraged, but they do not make good barriers against accidental or deliberate intrustion of vehicles into pedestrian spaces.
Stranger
Sure, there are some examples shown here.
Big trees are expensive though. And smaller trees are vulnerable to damage from being hit by cars - you end up having to install bollards to protect the trees.
Its not really my definition, when I was growing up this sort of thing was called mass murder. With the rental van being the method, along the lines of the European experience with terrorism, unless a medical or mechanical reason is stated, the amount of casualties will veer towards Terrorism.
As I said, its not my definition. If an impaired driver goes off the road and takes out some people, thats a tragedy but its understandable. Same with a driver that has a heart attack and hits the gas pedal, no one injured but I did see that happen years ago, Driver dead at the wheel.
Whose definition is it then? And what exactly is this definition?
My definition is mass murder.
Ralphie says its not terrorism, cause he is our minister of public safety
People that got run down, probably were terrified so I would give them a pass if the survivors thought it was a terrorist attack
Media initially calling it a terrorist attack, but its been a while so I have not kept up on what their script says.
are you going to plant them at intersection crossings? At some point the people need to get to the other side of the road.
The problem isn’t the tool used to kill people. The problem is the person who wants to kill people. There are an infinite number of ways to make that happen.
AFAICT it appears to have been another in a line of of misogynist-terror attacks: i.e., mass murders/assaults committed by men who resent what they perceive as their insufficient access to and/or attention from women they consider desirable. They are trying to punish and terrorize the so-called “normies”, i.e., people they perceive as having normally fulfilling personal lives, particularly women.
Elliot Rodger seems to be the chief idol of devotees of this movement, but mass murderers like Marc Lepine and George Sodini are other instances. Of course, there’s a lot of overlap between misogynist terror and other forms such as white-supremacist terror and radical-Islamist terror, but people like Rodger and Minassian are definitely foregrounding the misogyny aspect.
Is that a term Rodger or Minassian are known to have used?
I don’t know. Sorry if it was not clear that I used quote marks not because I was quoting either of them directly, but to indicate that the word was a term of art, so to speak. It is very widely used in the misogyny subculture that both Rodger and Minassian were part of.
I don’t think the term “normies” has been linked to Alek Minassian, but there does appear to be evidence that he was aware of Elliot Rodger and shared his deeply disturbed world views.
I’m not sure that I would soften the description of misogynist-terrorism beliefs down to “deeply disturbed world views”, though. When, say, a radical-extremist-Islamist fanatic commits a terrorist act, we don’t just say he’s got “deeply disturbed world views”, we say his particular brand of ideology is evil and murderous and hateful.
It is not unusual that clinical-sounding talk about being “disturbed” or “deranged” is reserved for non-Muslim white mass murderers who are pissed off at women or black people, but I don’t think they deserve to be cut that slack.
Plant them on both sides and build a rickety rope bridge between them.
FWIW the US federal code defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”. Mass murder, or even any murder, doesn’t play into it.
Canada may be different.
Misogynist terrorism, along with white-nationalist terrorism, fits this definition. When Dylann Roof, for example, told his victims he wanted to start a race war, or when Elliot Rodger declared his resolve to kill “Chads and Stacys”, or when Minassian announced the start of the so-called “incel rebellion”, they were using their violent acts to intimidate or coerce a segment of the civilian population in furtherance of their political/social objectives.
This is not “senseless” mass murder where some deranged individual blows away a bunch of random strangers because the voices in his head are telling him that they’re anthropophagic extraterrestrial pod people, for example. This is violence designed as a gesture of power and intimidation towards the larger community, fueled by specific ideologies and movements with supporters who cheer on the murderers even if they don’t directly collaborate in their crimes. In other words, terrorism.
What are their demands? That hotties seek out rude, reclusive psychos and sex them up?