In the wake of the deadly attack with a van in Münster, many reports noted that the city was about install bollards in the downtown area. But do barriers really offer protection? Experts say effectiveness has its price.
It seems like a cruel irony. In response to the deadly terrorist attacks with vehicles in Nice, Barcelona, London, Stockholm and at a Christmas market in Berlin, Münster had plans in place to install bollards ahead of next month’s German Catholic Convention — only for an attacker to drive a van into a crowd of people before the barriers had been put up.
The reality, however, is different. The attacker in Münster seems to have no connections to Islamist terrorism. And the planned bollards wouldn’t have helped prevent Saturday’s attack because the streets in question weren’t among those to be protected.
One obvious weakness with bollards and other protective barriers is that decisions about where to place them have no margin for error. And yet after every vehicular attack, more and more cities invest large sums in such barriers.
Read more: Madrid to Manchester to Barcelona: A chronology of terror in Europe
New York City, for instance, earmarked 50 million dollars (41 million euros) for high-security metal bollards after the attack by a pick-up truck on the October 31. Münster’s plans include bollards at a cost of 20,000 euros each at thirteen locations.
In Australia, thousands of simple concrete “jersey blocks” were installed in the country’s major cities. They are far cheaper than classic metal bollards, but experts question their effectiveness. So what should cities do to protect themselves?
For more read the full of article at The Dw
