3 ms·
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 signific
by jcrawfordor 7y ago
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.
- mr__y 7y ago>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?
- noodlesUK 7y agoContrary 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.