Bollards play a key role in defeating terrorist attack in Glasgow, Scotland
The attack on Glasgow Airport in Scotland today was foiled in large part by bollards. Ever see a bollard in action? No? Then you've never seen a speeding transport truck ripped apart like so much tissue paper. It's quite the sight to see.
Two defused car bombs in London, followed by a stunning attack on the airport in Glasgow, Scotland -- Britain is on edge and for good reason:
Two men rammed a flaming sport utility vehicle into the main terminal of Glasgow airport Saturday, crashing into the glass doors at the entrance and sparking a fire, witnesses said. Police said two suspects were arrested.
The airport - Scotland's largest - was evacuated and all flights suspended, a day after British police thwarted a plot to bomb central London, discovering two cars abandoned with loads of gasoline, gas canisters and nails.
In Glasgow, the green SUV barreled toward the building at full speed shortly after 3 p.m., hitting security barriers before crashing into the glass doors and exploding, witnesses said. Two men jumped out of the burning vehicle, one of them engulfed in flames, they said.
"The car came speeding past at about 30 mph. It was approaching the building quickly," said Scott Leeson, who was nearby at the time. "Then the driver swerved the car around so he could ram straight in to the door. He must have been trying to smash straight through."
Leeson said bollards - security posts outside the entrance - stopped the driver from barreling into the bustling terminal at Glasgow's airport.
The latest report I heard was the total civilian casualty toll was one person with a leg injury. The airport will be closed for two days, maybe three at the most.
We all see bollards everywhere, but few people know the proper name. I recall bollards sprouting like mushrooms in 1991 in the days after Operation Desert Storm started. Those short and humble posts, sometimes doubling as flower boxes or supports for benches, designed to stop the sort of attack we've seen in Glasgow today.
The requirements for so-called "anit-ram" bollards are defined by the US State Department. Basically, a 15,000 pound vehicle is driven at the barrier while carrying a payload of 55-gallon drums filled with sand in an open flatbed. After the crash, the farthest distance past the barrier reached by the dislodged payload can't exceed three feet. The speed at which the truck hits the barrier defines the "K" rating of the barrier (assuming it successfully stops the vehicle and payload, of course):
If a barrier stops a 15,000-pound truck traveling at a certain speed, AND the front edge of the truck's cargo bed does not penetrate more than one meter beyond the pre-impact inside edge of the barrier**, then it is given a rating according to the table below.
Speed at Impact / Barrier Rating
30 mph / K4
40 mph / K8
50 mph / K12For example, if a barrier stops a 15,000-pound truck traveling at 40 mph and the front of the cargo bed penetrated one foot beyond the impact point, the barrier receives a K8 rating.
** Note in the most recent version of the standard, it is the distance travelled by the payload and not the cargo bed that is the important measurement.
Because it is so cool, here are videos of bollards in action:
If the bollards at the entrance of the Glasgow airport were even half as effective as these (and I'm willing to bet they were nothing less than 100% effective), then these terrorists are either monumentally ignorant or hopelessly optimistic.
Which is why I wonder if al Qaeda has been reduced to deploying their second stringers and jihadi wannabees. Having seen these videos, in which attempts to defeat the bollards under ideal conditions for the attacker -- straight run-up to the bollard, no secondary defenses (curbs, walls, etc), and driving a large cargo truck instead of a smaller SUV -- result in decisive wins for the bollard, I would reject this sort of plan out of hand as a pointless waste of resources. Not to mention the only thing I could be certain of is that my cell would be rolled up by the authorities.
In the mean time, let's hear it for the humble bollard!
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
terrorism Glasgow Scotland airport bollard
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
um hit the doors at 30 mph. made it to the doors, doesn't sound like the bollards you youtubed. Think about it; the Jeep Cherokee's airbag would've gone off and/or no airbag then they would've been probably incapacitated or dead, not running around afterward. Take some time and get the facts, not all the info is obviously out yet.
Posted by: Fergy at June 30, 2007 06:40 PM
Also the report says "security barriers". I would hope they are bollards but I didn't see any in any pics I saw. Maybe faulty reporting, or officials trying to calm down the people.
Posted by: Fergy at June 30, 2007 06:44 PM
okay my appolgies Steve there were Bollards. just apparently not enough. Me bad
Posted by: Fergy at June 30, 2007 07:12 PM
Maybe we need a better bollard. I heard that many years ago the Islamists were raising a rukus and the man in charge fixed the problem very quickly. He took the dead bodies of the perpetraters and buried them in the same grave as a dead pig. He then made it well known that anyone caught acting in a similar manner would receive similar treatment. Terrorism came to an end very quickly.
Posted by: joe at June 30, 2007 08:12 PM
An even better bollard would be to take the dead bodies of the Islamist and burying the body with a dead pig and let it be known that any other dead terrorist will receive similar treatment.
Posted by: joe at June 30, 2007 08:15 PM
Most of the reports didn't give details. This one did quote an official who said bollards did keep the SUV from progressing further into the terminal. An explosion in the doorway where half the force goes (relatively) harmlessly outside is better than an explosion in the centre of the structure itself.
Posted by: Steve Janke at June 30, 2007 09:08 PM
The pictures I've seen show the SUV essentially outside of the building. Some reports say they drove through one security barrier. That might be true especially if that security barrier was an outer layer used for pedestrian control and not an anti-ram layer situated at the entrance where a ramming attempt is likely to be made.
Posted by: Steve Janke at June 30, 2007 09:13 PM
In a way, it's a good thing these things are happening. Perhaps, particularly with Brown in power, Britain will lead the way and start closing immigration to anyone from the Middle East or other Muslim regions. In addition, those already inside the country must be looked into very closely and, if necessary, deported (even if they face torture in their home country -- as Tony Blair wrote recently).
These times call for tough measures; no room for political correctness anymore.
Posted by: Werner Patels at June 30, 2007 10:35 PM
I know this is totally politically incorrect to say, but if we continue to leave immigration open to everyone and anyone like Britain has...this could happen at Pearson in a couple years.
Posted by: Darren K at June 30, 2007 11:05 PM
Details remain sketchy at best, but a few details have been cited repeatedly: one, that the area attacked should only have been accessible to taxicabs (presumably, this is the "first" level of security which was breached). Two, that the bollards did their job and prevented the vehicle from entering the terminal building (although it's not entirely clear whether the doors themselves were touched).
Less clear is the number of individuals in the vehicle: late reports suggested three. One apparently died in the car (apparently it was to access him that one of the men was seen trying to open the rear hatch), another was seriously burned (after having thrown punches at an approaching police officer trying to put out his flaming clothing), and a third was in police custody.
As for the security provided by the bollards, I worry about other similar barriers in use at certain Canadian installations, formed by a gate which rises to provide entry: I do hope they have been tested to ensure that a low vehicle cannot force them up on impact. Better are the barriers which are solid to the ground, and which must close by descending from the secure side of the barrier.
Posted by: Paul O at June 30, 2007 11:44 PM
Darren K.: Mind you, Britain's immigration system has always been tighter than Canada's "free-for-all" system. It'll happen in Canada, but for our nitwit politicians (and that includes Harper, who wants to increase the annual quota of immigrants) to act and shut down immigration, I am afraid, we'll have to wait for a mushroom cloud over Toronto first.
Posted by: Werner Patels at June 30, 2007 11:59 PM
Excuse me? Could happen here? You should have your memories de-erased.
Posted by: Dicky Duck at July 1, 2007 08:28 AM
Hey...it WILL happen here, thanks you years of the Liberal Party cow-towing to every extremist group that has the numbers to get a Liberal elected. Dion's even worse....he specifically offered a deal to these groups to attain the leadership of his party. I suspect a terror attack here will happen sooner, rather than later. After all....it IS CANADA day....what better way for terrorists to send a message. If it happens...and people die...THANK A LIBERAL!!!
Posted by: JamesHalifax at July 1, 2007 10:51 AM
Did anyone catch that great piece on CBC National about the Liberal Party's involvement with Sikh criminals and terrorists (particularly Dion!)? I was surprised to see such a candid and truthful report from the CBC, and it was spot on. They also interviewed Dosanjh, who said that his party (and Dion) was opportunistic for associating with these criminals.
Just watch for Dosanjh getting the boot from Dion for doing the CBC interview.
Posted by: Werner Patels at July 1, 2007 02:00 PM
Dosanjh has been the target of Sikh terrorists , so his interest in admitting the truth is quite personal.
The Liberals have brought much danger to our Country, letting in all comers, including illegals and bogus refugees who stay on because of our ill thought out Charter. The worst have been allowed in from ME Tinderboxes where terrorism is spawned.
Don't know who'll get the boot in the Liberal party but
Dion is on shaky ground himself. It's also rumoured there are more defections planned, Comuzzi is the latest to join the Conservatives.
We not only have to start deporting we have to stop absolutely all immigration from Islamic ruled countries.
They are not a blend with our way of life.
We have the example of women going about shunning all around them by wearing full burkas with only eyes peeping out, that's not blending with our people, we cannot talk to a tent and we do not know what is actually under that tent.
We also risk Balkanizing our Country with our stupid Multicultural policies coupled with the Trudeau Charter, a recipe for our demise as a strong, cohesive society. We are at huge risk of losing our the country as we know it, forged through great hardship by our European Ancestors.
We think we have problems with the Separatists of Quebec or the Natives but at least we know who they are , we're dealing with known quantities.
Posted by: Libby at July 2, 2007 07:31 AM
RE: al-Qaeda using their "second-stringers"....
Shortly after World War 2 ended, a journalist asked Admiral William F. ("Bull") Halsey why the kamikazes were such an ineffective weapon. Halsey replied, "Simple. They never got any practice!"
(More recently, we've all probably seen the cartoon of the terrorist training camp where the instructor - dynamite wrapped around his torso - says, "Okay, pay attention. I'm only going to do this once!")
Posted by: Tom at July 2, 2007 09:14 AM
I'm just remembering Chretien's final UN speech where he blamed poverty as the root cause of terrorism.....as I watch the news and see 3 young doctors arrested as ringleader & suicide bombers in London & Glasgow.
Thank god that old goof is no longer in charge. In hindsight, his speech seems very puerile & banal.
Posted by: Levesque at July 2, 2007 12:39 PM
I don't think I'd call Chretien as a goof, just someone who was totally clueless. I think he's still that way.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at July 2, 2007 02:08 PM
I'm just remembering Chretien's final UN speech where he blamed poverty as the root cause of terrorism.....as I watch the news and see 3 young doctors arrested
The National Health system in Britain is a perfect example of how commie central planning runs berserk over people's right to life, right to their property, and the right to work. Anyone who is surprised that inmates of such a socialist system would, when exacerbated by religious and ethnic factors commit such an evil act just hasn't been paying attention.
Ever hear of the doc (a non-Muslim) working in the National Health system who murdered dozens and dozens of patients, just because he could? Have you any idea how many other doctors of death are slipping needles into people who don't know any better and who wouldn't have a choice in medical care anyways even if they suspected their government doc was not all there? Ever wonder how many tens of thousands of Brits die every year because of the crappy, rationed, non-healthcare they receive?
I will not excuse in any way the barbarous acts of terror these extremists are commiting, but you would have to let off a hell of a lot of car bombs before you would come anywhere near the body count that has been piled up by the UK's little experiment with socialist utopianism.
It's not gonna happen, but if they really want to end terrorism they'll have to dismantle the welfare state, un-ban guns, and cut taxes and regulations waaaaayyyyyyy back to the point where people - both native-born and immigrants - can actually work together productively and cooperatively in the free market. If smart young doctors can actually earn a living and raise their families in a free market without 100,000 goddamned government bureaucrats and 20 million goddamned parasites dragging them down then I doubt if you're going to see very many of them blow themselves up with gasoline.
Posted by: at July 2, 2007 03:41 PM
Werner Patels, et al., The 'hit' piece on the Sikhs on the CBC was likely the dirty work of a failed leadership candidate. If you watch closely, ask yourself who is attacked in that piece and who is promoted from the liberal party in Canada?
Irrespective of that, why shouldn't CANADIANS get involved in politics? isn't that part of citizenship? when did it become de rigeur to broadcast self-promoter's claims, innuendo and falsehood as truth?
who is the opportunist politician? a guy that starts out associating with Trotskyists, then joins a socialist (red, left wing) party, drives said political party into oblivion and then jumps ship at the first offer to rehabilitate himself by joining a party farther to the right. someone who accepts honours from a foreign government and goes on a self-promo tour in his 'homeland' on the taxpayer dime? he's the same guy that supported a leadership candidate that lost at that convention. ASK the NDP who the opportunist politicians are in that piece. last time I checked Dion didn't jump from one part of the political spectrum to the next, to the next, etc...
perhaps you need to examine who each of those politicians is and his motivations for speaking.
Posted by: KS at July 3, 2007 10:54 AM
...i thought bollards were brought in because of the 'smash and grab' technique juvenile robbers were using.
Using a older Chev pickup (strongest front end) they'd smash into a store, then back out...rob the place and tear off in a Ford Mustang.
Posted by: tomax7 at July 3, 2007 07:40 PM
 
|
|
