Those odd-looking security barriers | Hacker News Reader

Those odd-looking security barriers

ianvisits.co.uk

186 pointsedward144 comments

I would love to see more bollards deployed in Manhattan to protect pedestrians. Every day I see drivers making dangerous moves, running red lights, and intimidating people in crosswalks etc. There's one particular spot right in front of my apartment where I see people run the red light constantly, but the NYPD does nothing. Across the US, pedestrian and cyclist deaths are on the rise[1][2].

I've always thought it might be worth using retractable bollards in busy intersections to protect people from dangerous drivers, or to stop those who simply do not respect pedestrians. Traffic enforcement in NYC seems weak at best, and the NYPD appears to favour drivers over pedestrians and cyclists. Their enforcement activities involve ticketing delivery drivers (who have literally killed nobody ever) instead of keeping dangerous drivers off the roads.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/07/traffic-deat...

[2]: https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/pedestrian-deaths-at-hi...

New York is a special case. Only city I have ever driven in where a police officer actively told me to drive into a crowded crosswalk because that was the only way you would ever get to take a left turn.

Eh, that happens in London too. Kings' Cross station comes to mind. The way to make progress is to slowly drive into the pedestrians.

So it goes.

Bangalore makes New York look like Stockholm.

It is an interesting idea, but retractable barriers aren't super reliable, get hit semi-frequently, and you'd need to design additional tools to assist emergency vehicles.

Red light cameras could likely solve the situation with no physical or mechanical considerations.

Red light cameras don't increase safety [1]. They may shift some of the injuries from pedestrians to drivers, but overall there's no benefit.

[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078079

I didn't see it mentioned, but I wonder if the study also accounts for the practice of reducing yellow light duration to increase revenue from red light cameras as a means of generating more revenue.

https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...

That was my first thought. Chicago's red light program is rather infamous, and, as a pedestrian, I do feel less safe at the intersections that had them installed. The lights change so fast that a motorists who presumably don't realize how ridiculously short the timing on Chicago traffic lights can be often sail through the intersection a good 1-2 seconds after the lights have signaled for crossing traffic - both vehicles and pedestrians - to proceed.

IMO, the best system is the one they have in Montréal. The traffic lights work a bit differently from the rest of North America in several ways, but one is special "vertical green bar" lights indicating that you're only allowed to go straight. No turns allowed until the regular green lamp illuminates. This does a pretty effective job of encouraging motorists to wait for pedestrians. Québec drivers are somewhat famously aggressive, but I still felt safer as a pedestrian in Montréal than in any other North American city I've visited.

I've seen green up arrows (to mean the same thing) plenty in the west suburbs of Chicago.

Cameras can cause abrupt breaking and more collisions. Maybe if paired with gradual light transitions and barriers they could be a net benefit.

That sounds like short light transitions, not cameras.

NYC is already stuffed with red light cameras as well as cameras that automatically give you speeding tickets.

Delivery drivers make traffic conditions dangerous by forcing cyclists out into the road at every block and limiting visibility curbside.

Raised intersections have also been found to be effective in these situations

Just a week ago, NYC approved a plan to revamp streets for bikes, pedestrians, and buses:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-City-Council-to-Vo...

Personal cars just need to be banned in Manhattan already.

Similarly, I wish there was a bollard design that could keep bicyclists off of sidewalks and out of crosswalks without impeding the disabled.

In SF I have even seen motorcycles on the sidewalk. Not scooters, full-sized bikes. There is no technical cure for a social ill.

Give them a safe place to ride and this solves itself.

I used to imagine that might be so, but when walking I regularly face bicyclists riding at full speed down a narrow sidewalk even though there is a parallel bike lane on a safe and fairly deserted street not two meters away.

In any case, the tribulations of bicyclists is not a sufficient reason for them to endanger pedestrians. When I ride, I keep it in the street. It's the right thing to do.

I found that most of the people doing this are not daily cyclists but the "weekend warriors" or "fair-weather" cyclists. As a cyclist, I've had a lot of close calls with people who simply don't know what the fuck they're doing and it's obvious. Things like:

1. In an urban area, you can't go against traffic but they think it's "safer," much like driving an SUV must be "safer."

2. My personal "favorite," the issue you brought up, people riding on the sidewalk... it's safer to ride in the street for everyone. Riding on the sidewalk endangers pedestrians, yourself, and cars since they won't see at all you when they're turning... but people still do it because it "feels safer."

Part of the problem is I think we probably have zero efforts to inform the public how to ride safely... I imagine most people think a helmet is the only thing they'll need: "Oh shit, beebs, I got my HELLMET and spandex on let's ride til we die."

I agree that riding in the road is the right thing to do from a safety standpoint for everyone involved. Cyclists are much more likely to be hit by cars when riding on the sidewalks, and are probably more likely to injure pedestrians as well.

Since you seem to ride, is it possible there's something unsafe about the particular cycle paths you're referencing?

My current city gets awards for having some of the best bicycling infrastructure in the US. At first glance, it seems like bicycle heaven.

But after having walked/bicycled/driven here for a few years, one realizes that the reality is different. The novel and specialized bike lanes/laws/signage are quite confusing to drivers, and confusion is the enemy of safety. As an example, in various places, drivers turning must yield to bicyclists several car lengths behind them, potentially on their right or their left. All of this while simultaneously yielding to bikes/cars/peds that may be approaching from the other three directions. This is difficult to pull off, even for a safety freak like me.

I felt much safer riding my bike (and walking and driving) in Los Angeles. There's far less infra, but the situation was simple for all to understand. Wide shoulders (in my area) seemed to make a big difference, and sidewalks that were mostly bike-unrideable seemed to help.

> Cyclists are much more likely to be hit by cars when riding on the sidewalks,

Is this actually true? I haven't seen data one way or the other, so I'd be interested to know. I can see reasons why it could go either way.

It's a big claim, and potentially misleading even if technically true. There could plausibly be a higher accident rate, but lower serious injury and fatality rates. (Due to lower-speed collisions, and reduced likelihood of being knocked into other traffic.)

A quick google found this page [http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/news/1637] created by a walking lobby group, which looks like an attempt to present the strongest case against footpath cycling, but still leaves all the big questions open.

Sidewalks often intersect car trajectories, either due to driveways or street crossings. Pedestrians are relatively easy for drivers to see because they move slowly. Bicycles on the other hand can be moving quite quickly and often believe (often correctly) that they have the right of way. Combine that with poor visibility, typical lack of bicycle lights/reflectors/etc, and unpredictable behavior, and you have a recipe for disaster.

That’s true, but not unique to sidewalks. Much of the same arguments likely apply to bike lanes.

> The system recently passed impact tests, where it prevented a 7,200kg lorry travelling at 32kph from penetrating less than five metres.

How about a 4,500lb (2,000kg) SUV traveling at 65mph (105kph)?

20mph (32kph) is a crawl. Even a slow passenger vehicle can hit that speed within 60ft (18m) or so. I think tests should involve vehicles going at least 40mph (65kph) if they are attempting to present realistic results.

There's different "levels" of vehicle security barriers (see ISO standard IWA14). This one is only rated to 2,500 kg @ 48 kph (90 degree impact) or 7,200 kg @ 32 kph (90 degree impact). Making it a lightweight/temporary.

That's exactly how the manufacturer sells it too, listing it under "Temporary Security." Boasting that it is lightweight, small to store, quick to deploy, with only four men and no machines required. Great for events or as a short term solution.

If you look at how it is deployed in London, they have it in locations where you'd never be able to get up to high speed due to the layout of the streets/congestion. With hopefully(?) more long term barriers being in the works.

So I don't think it is a significant criticism to say it is a weak VSB. That's exactly the niche it is trying to fulfil, and exactly how it is advertised.

> Those crumpled weak looking plastic barriers are just a cladding, and what’s underneath is enough to give people second thoughts about ramming a vehicle at them — massive spikes.

Its sad how much of an after-thought these covers are. Each cover is crumpled in from the inevitable teenager standing on top of one… besides looking bad, it seems like a huge liability for whomever implements these barriers.

In NYC for extra special occasions (a United Nations dinner at the Metropolitan Museum of Art for instance) the police will close the street around the venue. They prevent all motor vehicle traffic with an extremely practical, temporary and unglamorous security measure -- parking two garbage trucks across all the adjoining intersections.

The big plant pots outside offices aren’t filled with concrete, but a fine honeycomb of aluminum that’s designed to crumple and absorb the impact energy.

In Chicago, more often than not, they're filled with bunnies. They're actually massive pots filled with dirt and rabbits from nearby parks build their warrens in them. Good for the building and good for the critters.

>and good for the critters

Until they are actually used for their purpose - absorbing the impact energy ?

Depends on when an impact happens. They only go in the planters at night, when an impact seems significantly less likely. Although they do stay in the bigger ones all winter.

These are a great idea, I not sure how the plastic will look after a few years of service. Maybe they are designed to have the plastic replaced after they get scuffed, burned and cracked by people walking by them?

Just a thought but I wonder if liquid filled , haywire wrapped bollards might be a better idea, the liquid can be drained to allow easy relocation and the haywire would tangle the wheels similar to how chainsaw saftey chaps work.

Probably the same as any other hard plastic device that sees frequent public deployment. No cable ramp looks half as nice as it does in the manufacturer photos, either.

Adding large quantities of liquid to a safety device comes with its own set of challenges.

They are meant to be temporary, and are not even fixed to the ground.

Emergency vehicles need to get through. The flimsy plastic covers can just be rammed once the barriers are down.

In my days they called these Cheval de frise

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheval_de_frise

> The system recently passed impact tests, where it prevented a 7,200kg lorry travelling at 32kph from penetrating less than five metres.

That does not sound great. 32kph is slow and 5 meters! easily crosses entire sidewalk/roadway/whatever who wanted to keep vehicle out of.

Designed for congested/small UK streets where a lorry can't get up to significant speed.

Also they are primarily deployed at the entrances to long walkways/bridges, where a lorry at speed would do significant damage to pedestrians. As these prevent a lorry from entering a walkway, 5m of rapidly-slowing "penetration" is acceptable.

There is an air of paranoia unique to the UK with these things. Not sure I have ever seen an anti-ramming device outside a few poles out fron of pawn and liquor shops in especially bad areas. Is the situation that bad to warrant what seem like military barriers? I am at a loss.

I feel like bollards have an amazing effectiveness to intrusiveness ratio. They stop people from using vehicles to attack lots of people, but they don't really interfere with day to day living, or violate any privacy.

> They stop people from using vehicles to attack lots of people

They don't just stop using vehicles as weapons. It's important they also stop vehicles which are out of control from colliding with pedestrians, or drivers who are having a stroke, or just messy accidents from spilling over into pedestrian areas.

There was a nasty accident here in Ottawa in January where a double-decker city bus collided with an overhang at a bus station. Three people died and many more were injured. There was a great deal of focus in the media about improving the crash worthiness of buses for occupants on the upper deck, but a simple line of bollards at the front of the station would have saved lives by preventing the upper level of the bus from colliding with the station in the first place.

Much like the only useful change in airport security. A better cockpit door and a protocol for it's use.

>They stop people from using vehicles to attack lots of people.

This seems like a relatively new phenomenon in the past 10 years or so. That or maybe I just never would hear about the vehicle attacks prior and it is just more spoken about now.

Regardless whether this is a new phenomenon at least they are taking steps to mitigate the impact of these types of attacks.

They've been around for a long time. I fractured my knee on one in Brussels in the 99's that looked like they'd been there for decades, if not centuries.

I think they're more popular now because building owners are trying to keep their insurance rates down and there is an industry to take advantage of that.

I can see that, much like in the USA there were a ton of companies trying to profit off of the school shootings offering things like clear backpacks for every student, metal detectors at every entrance, video surveillance etc.

I'm not saying that some of these companies don't want to help prevent another tragedy or mitigate them, however there are a ton of companies trying to make a quick buck off of people emotional and suffering from a tragedy.

Some form of detection/protection is nice, but I feel that we shouldn't have to button down every school and treat it like Ft. Knox either. Schools can hardly afford after school programs, much less hi-tech security systems/operators.

They are another incredibly expensive (security) theater prop.

Can you elaborate on this? It seems like they would be relatively inexpensive and effective at preventing a type of attack that would otherwise be fairly simple. That being the case I don't see much reason not to use them.

Using NYC as an example, how many casualties (which would have been prevented by bollards) happened before bollards became a fixture?

Getting a 40ton truck isn't hard, and those are very difficult to shield against. Most deployments don't resist them.

There are better ways, just look at military anti-tank bollards. Those will stop a truck, and archive what you want. They are also not as temporary, usually.

I’m not sure it’s paranoia, it’s pedestrian protection. Various attacks in London, Berlin and other places have been trucks driven onto pedestrian areas. Sometimes they can be minor, for instance the road going north from Covent Garden.

For London I started seeing more barriers in the wake of two similar vehicle attacks in 2017:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack

Much like generals prepare to fight the last war, security forces prepare to prevent the last terror attack. The most high-profile recent attack in the UK was someone driving a van into a few people near London Bridge.

The UK used to be calmer about terrorist attacks - they're not worth putting down your pint over, really - but lately the US panic culture seems to have spread here.

A long history of terrorist attacks, e.g. bombing the hotel the prime minister was sleeping in at the time (1984). More recently there have been many van attacks mostly by Muslim extremists, and that's what the barriers are about

> mostly by Muslim extremists

Could you try to quantify that claim instead of just throwing it out there?

Particularly in the context that ramming attacks have become rather common across the world in these past years [0], with plenty of them having a "non-terrorist" background [1].

[0] https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/18798/rise-in-vehicle-at...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of...

How are you tallying up your [1] source? 4/4 by my count meet the criteria GP pointed out, 3/4 if you insist on splitting out "revenge for military action in the middle-East" as having nothing to do with it, which is a stretch.

There are more than 4 attacks on that list, so how are you tallying it up?

Based on whether or not they happened in the UK, which is the subject of this discussion. Perhaps I missed some, but as far as I can tell only 4 of them happened in the UK.

I did some checking on your sources. That Wikipedia page is far from accurate.

In the list of 'non-terrorist' incidents, there are 2014 Dijon and Nantes attack and 2017 Antwerp. There may be more.

I never claimed it's accurate, nor is it likely to be complete, but it's a bit misleading to imply this inaccuracy only applies to the non-terrorist incidents, particularly in the context that there isn't really that "one" definition for terrorism [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

From [0] : "For example, they depict how the 2017 Finsbury Park Mosque ramming attack was conducted by a man who had been motivated to act by the ISIS-inspired London Bridge ramming attack 16 days earlier. Subsequently, within six days of the Finsbury Park attack, two other similar ramming attacks against Muslims had occurred: one in North London and another in front of a Mosque in France."

You see, nothing to do with Muslims! It must be social contagion instead.

Did you even read your own quote? 2/3 of the attacks it mentions were perpetrated against muslims.

If you check the Wikipedia link above, the tally is 13 to 1 in 2018, as but one example.

Islamists ramming people with cars inspiring other people to ram Muslims with cars does seem more like social contagion than anything to do with Muslims specifically.

Before this 'research' was published I bet one would call that revenge.

I see them out front of big box stores but I have a feeling it's more for pedestrian safety from inattentive drivers accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake than preventing people from doing a robbery.

Vehicular smash and grabs certainly happen, and I suspect that's the reason for most store bollards. Going through my local shopping center, the grocery store has a couple that are clearly for pedestrian protection, the pet store don't have them, and the electronics, clothing, and toy stores have bollards only useful for security. (Far from the curb and in front of windows.) That seems to be pretty consistent on the value/density spectrum to me.

Here's an Apple store without bollards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od5YG6kBrJs

You can already get arrested there for carrying a pocket knife or a screwdriver. Paranoia is the order of the day.

At least these do some actual good.

You could also get arrested for having work tools locked up in your van or even carrying a deadly potato peeler in public

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3165489/Gardener-arr...

https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16209261.potato-peeler-l...

I won't defend the law itself, I think knives are useful tools, but I am disappointed that I can't find more detail about the potato peeler incident. Important context like what he was doing when police arrested him and why they stopped him to see what he was carrying in the first place are no where to be found. I did see that he was on bail for "another unspecified offense" at the time of his arrest, but I'm not even sure he was arrested for having the peeler. It's possible it was just something they tacked on after his arrest. As sensationalist as it sounds, my guess is that it was more reasonable than headlines and conservative websites would suggest.

There's an epidemic of knife crime in the UK at the moment. I'd say prohibiting carrying a knife without a good reason is a good thing.

Poe’s Law is in effect. I can’t tell if you’re actually serious. A pocket knife carried by the average Joe harms nobody, so prohibiting carrying it is absolutely beyond reason.

Except that the law can't usefully distinguish between the "average Joe" and a teenager on their way to a gang fight.

The law allows anyone to carry a non-locking folding knife with a blade of up to 76mm in length, unless there is evidence that they intend to use it as a weapon. The law also allows anyone to carry any bladed article if they have a lawful reason to do so - a chef can carry their knife bag to work, a carpenter can carry a utility knife to a job site, but you can't just drive around with a knife in your car for no good reason.

What a stupid, counterproductive law. Non locking folding knives are a safety hazard to the user. If you're going to bother carrying a pocketknife at all then it should have a lock.

I have carried a pocket knife (with a lock) every single day of my life since I was 9 years old. I have opened countless boxes, letters, and used it trim hoses, as an impromptu pick, to clean my fingernails, to poke something, to dig, as an aid since I lack long nails to pop watch clasps, and all sorts of other manners as a good all-purpose tool. It has never been used as a weapon, because that is not what a pocket knife is for.

The law you just described is beyond asinine to the point it is unfathomable to me the type of person who would propose such depth of stupidity be enacted as legislation.

The law you just described is literally tyrannical. It is so deeply unreasonable on its face that any right-thinking person should oppose it, and the means to enforce it necessitate the use of the violence of the state. It is fundamentally oppressive.

A knife is a tool, and is an essential tool for all manner of use to enable a person to more effectively live their life and do their work. Restricting it in this manner is a restriction on livelihood and is evil.

I recently visited Ireland and was shocked to learn that in the 1920s was a rule forbidding men to put their hand in their pockets when walking outside. Anybody violating this could be shot by the police.

It can get worse.

I carry a pocket knife because it occasionally comes in handy. Opening a box, trimming a loose thread, picking a piece of spinach out of my teeth. Those are all good and lawful reasons, but I don’t think they’d be good enough for the Brits.

(I also carry a concealed handgun because someday it might come in extremely handy, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish.)

> Those are all good and lawful reasons, but I don’t think they’d be good enough for the Brits.

It's not just the Brits who would wonder why you need a blade longer than 3" for those uses.

The Brits would also require it to be a non-locking knife, for some reason. I prefer a knife that locks open, for safety reasons. But the UK government, in its infinite wisdom, says no.

You can do all those things with a knife legal to carry in the UK.

And I’m sure their subjects are happy that they can still carry such knives, for now.

The 67 victim stabbed and dead only this year would have different opinion.

What does that have to do with an average Joe and his pocket knife?

Please walk me through your logic to believe that restrictions on knife carry are reasonable. I cannot see it, no matter how much I try.

I guess this is an American perspective, but I cannot see a scenario where someone wouldn't have a good reason to carry one. At least where I grew up, not carrying a pocket knife would be considered irresponsible.

Knives are tools more often than they are weapons, and humanity has a tool-based civilization. There are many tools that can also function as a weapon, and any attempt to make one less suitable as a weapon frequently makes it even less suitable for its tool purpose. But not always.

The knife I keep in my pocket would only be a weapon as a last resort. The blade steel is tuned to hold a sharper edge for longer, and that makes it relatively brittle. The blade does not lock, making stabbing and slashing dangerous for the wielder's fingers. None of the tools lock. Someone would be better off keeping the whole thing closed and punching with their fist wrapped around it.

But there the cops go, holding a ruler up to the longest cutting tool. As though the only thing that differentiates it from a military pig-poker is just centimeters.

The typical Opinel knife which is cheap, handy and reliable does sorta rely on "locking", but it's a manual process.

They can be opened with one hand, but it's slow and nothing you could do while using the same hand to fight.

They have to fit the wielder's hand, however... big hands tend to require too large knives...

I'll have to agree however that the blade is brittle. You can't stab something that moves with them, unless you want it to break off.

They should make it illegal to stab people then. Problem solved.

Europe is full of 'Merkel Lego' these days :

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=merkel+lego&t=ffab&ia=images&iax=i...

Or is it 'Legos' ?

> Or is it 'Legos' ?

'Never, ever "Legos."' - LEGO

https://twitter.com/lego_group/status/842115345280294912?lan...

The entrances to most pedestrian zones in Germany used to be guarded by thin metal poles if at all, now nearly all of them have solid concrete blocks, clearly intended as anti-ramming devices.

The term "merkel lego" is politically charged but a decent way to find pictures of the stackable variety.

There is an air of paranoia unique to the UK with these things

Las Vegas is in the process of installing 5,000 bollards after some stoned lady drove onto a sidewalk and over a bunch of people.

They're designed to stop a full sized pickup truck going 55mph (90kph).

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/c...

Related: the Santa Monica farmer's market crash that killed 10 and injured 63, probably due to a confused driver. Bollards have since been installed there. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Farmers_Market_cr...)

> There is an air of paranoia unique to the UK with these things.

You obviously haven't been to Manhattan lately.

there's been a few incidents with vehicles mowing down pedestrians. I wouldn't label it paranoia. I'm personally impressed they've managed it without having to make the place _look_ threatening.

There are two major classes of applications for vehicle ram barriers. Both are common in the United States where I live, although the latter has become significantly more common over the past two decades as vehicle attacks have gained a higher profile:

First, retailers, particularly larger ones, have occasionally suffered a form of burglary in which the thief drives a vehicle through the glass facade (and perhaps metal security barrier) in order to gain access, loads up valuable goods quickly, and flees before the police or guards arrive (since this method is not exactly subtle and invariably results in a response). As a result, large retailers almost invariably have bollards or columns to prevent vehicles reaching the glass entrance. Target very visibly uses 'big red balls' while Wal-Mart is fond of a simple concrete bollard with a blue plastic cover. This form of theft was never extremely common, but the bollards are cheap to install and require virtually no maintenance, so it makes perfect sense. Because this is mostly a low-risk anti-theft situation, the barriers used are usually of simple designs (concrete-filled pipe) and would not withstand a large vehicle.

Second are counter-terrorist precautions. While effective against ramming attacks (e.g. driving into a crowd at speed as has happened several times recently in Europe and Great Britain), counter-terrorist ram barriers are usually intended primarily to prevent a car-bomb reaching an occupied area. They are not actually so much a post-9/11 precaution in the US but have actually been commonly installed since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, after which the federal government took significant measures to restrict vehicle access near facilities and private industry promptly followed.

These are intended against a higher-cost event and more motivated actors and so they are usually much more heavily engineered, and may use rather interesting designs since they are often retrofit. However, in new construction it is preferred to integrate the vehicle (and potentially blast) barrier into the larger landscape design so that it is more aesthetically pleasing. This is often done by designing a system of landscape boulders, street furniture, retaining walls, and steep berms into the landscape around a building which (possibly non-obviously) form a continuous wall to vehicles. Nearly any federal office building or courthouse designed since 1995 demonstrates this technique.

Counter-terrorist vehicle protections are becoming a standard part of the design of facilities that will attract crowds, especially when they are perceived as "public places." Such protections may be a requirement for government funding and incentives and liability insurance. And, ultimately, they are not very expensive in the scope of a large project, and may be funded by grants in the case of retrofit.

>This is often done by designing a system of landscape boulders, street furniture, retaining walls, and steep berms into the landscape around a building which (possibly non-obviously)

isn't a non-obviousness a bad idea? while I understand that it is motivated by aestetics but then you loose the deterrence factor?

Contrary to what a lot of people on this thread are saying, anti-ram devices aren’t security theatre. There are many situations where you don’t want what you’re building to look like an imposing fortress, and yet still be a relatively hard target against what you’re modelling for.

Vehicles the most accessible tool for lunatics to cause or deliver something to cause mass casualties in Europe.

A threat doesn't have to be an intentional act.

What happens to a passenger car if it drives straight to it? My guess would be that the metal shaft would impale the car and the occupants.

It might impale the engine, which is designed to slide underneath the cabin in case of a frontal collision.

I'd say the risk for the occupants should be similar to hitting a boulder or a tree. It all depends on the speed at impact, but given that these barriers are mainly used in urban areas I don't think they would form much of a risk.

At the sort of speeds that can be achieved in that area (Victoria) the engine might get dented. At motorway speeds it could do what you describe.

They aired some scientific tests of this question on Squidbillies a few years back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92wPOsuHZ9Y

The system recently passed impact tests, where it prevented a 7,200kg lorry travelling at 32kph from penetrating less than five metres.

https://vimeo.com/230126272

As a German, I'm kinda confused how that "truck" is called a "lorry". I think in Germany it would be classified as a PKW (Personal vehicle) [0], as opposed to an LKW (Cargo vehicle) [1].

I wonder how such a barrier would fare against an LKW with heavy cargo?

[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personenkraftwagen

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lastkraftwagen

> where it prevented a 7,200kg lorry travelling at 32kph from penetrating less than five metres.

Doesn't "preventing from penetrating less" mean it allowed it to penetrate more?

I would read it as equivalent to "forced it to penetrate at least five meters, if it penetrates at all".

If I prevent you from entering a password shorter than 8 characters that means you can either not enter a password or one with at least 8 characters. This is exactly analogous.

New rule in 2020: any news article that doesn't have a glaring typo, a sentence missing its subject or object, or mistaken double negative was written by AI

Jury of English Majors http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-court-confession-jury....

According to the technical specifications, the security rating is:

    IWA 14: V/2,500(N1G)/48/90:4.5
    IWA 14: V/7,200(N3C)/32/90:4.8

I interpret that like this:

2,500 kg vehicle traveling at 48 km/h penetrates 4.5 metres

7,200 kg vehicle traveling at 32 km/h penetrates 4.8 metres

The article describes one part of the specification and links to a video demonstrating the other part.

Yup. The pickup truck shown in the video most certainly does not mass 7,200 kg.

> The pickup truck shown in the video most certainly does not mass 7,200 kg.

Exactly, as the video title is "2,500 kg @ 30 mph"

In the EU a B-class driver's license allows you to drive anything up to 3500kg. Exceeding that you need at least a C1 class license (truck/lorry license) for up to 7500kg. Above that you need a full C class license.

So 7200kg is definitely a truck/lorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_driving_licence

According to the title of your video, it shows a different test scenario with only a 2500kg vehicle but higher speed.

That video says the truck weighs 2500kg so I presume the 7200kg lorry is a different thing.

Agreed, while the video is impressive (presumably in a full install, the rack has stronger connection to the ground).. it does say 2500kg at 30mph(~50kph).. not the 7200kg at 32kph(~20mph) the article mentions

As a Brit, I highly doubt that Ian sincerely believes that vehicle is a "lorry" - having said that, pickup trucks are not common in the UK so he might simply be unfamiliar with them and thought "lorry" was the accepted term.

I'd be very surprised if any British person (Americans I believe don't call any vehicle a 'lorry') would call that a lorry. Lorries are the container + cab vehicles, or fixed backs of similar shape and size.

I suspect the author wrote that without seeing the footage, perhaps reading 'truck' and assuming it was a lorry being described by someone who wouldn't use the word, as above.

The link or text must be wrong. From the link:

> Surface Guard Impact Test: IWA 14 - 2,500 kg @ 30 mph

So it's not a "7,200kg lorry". It's a 2,500 kg extended cab pickup.

Top picture at http://notesfromthedrivingseat.blogspot.com/2011/04/vehicle-... (discussing category C1 medium goods vehicle driving licences) is a 7.5 ton lorry. I would expect a 7.2 ton goods vehicle to be similarly more lorry than van.

But that video is of a 2500 kg "truck", so it really is a PKW (it's under 3500kg). Something weighing 7200kg is definitely a lorry.

That looks like what an American would call a "full-size pickup", which do not weigh 7,200kg (~16,000lbs).

Looks like a compact sized pickup truck, to me.

A 7.2ton vehicle would definitely be called a LKW (Llkw or Mlkw).

The thing nobodies mentioned in the article is that these types of barriers are for ingress and egress, and aren't largely practical for pedestrian spaces like San Francisco's embarcadero or a large park. In my opinion bollards still largely win. Ease of construction, omnidirectional impact, and no compromise in devastating stopping power. They're also capable of being aesthetic.

I miss the days I could walk through a crowded area without seeing these awful things.

The problem is, as these barriers become more widespread, the... perpetrators... of such attacks will simply move to other means of violence. Today we have regulations for buying cleaning products, minimum age requirements for buying cutlery, huge concrete barriers protecting us from cars... Some clever bugger is going to realise that pointy sticks are dangerous, soon. What then?

For some reason this reminded me of Czech hedgehogs.

it reminds me Archer’s stakes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer%27s_stake

They have to place such things in public now? How terribly saddening. I doubt many people will enjoy taking a stroll through what feels like a high-security area.

I'm wondering how much longer until we get what part of China have, where you must go through a metal detector or other security to enter, say, a grocery store. But it's all for our security, so I'm sure it's okay.

Your post reads like the lowest kind of tabloid sensationalism.

Plenty of things are out there protecting the public's safety already, some of which are far more notable than crumpled alumiunium plant pots.

We had most of the bins taken away in the 80s due to the IRA. Didn't stop a truck bomb from breaking every window in the City of London.

Still lower risk than mass shootings.

Unintended, but not unforeseeable, consequences of the Schengen Zone.

The UK is not in the Schengen Zone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com