It feels like 5 years ago, but it was only back in January that a man used a truck to kill 14 people in a ramming attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, LA. The city had been warned, and knew of the need to have bollards installed, but cheaped out on temporary bollards, which were apparently malfunctioning at the time of the attack. There had been a vehicle-ramming attack at the Christmas market in Magdeburg in December, and an attack in Munich following in February.

I'd say that the title is right on. Car terrorism is a thing.

I’m pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me.

Usually this is just an indicator that you aren't actually on the radical fringe. Not trying to contradict your point or anything, but this is a sort of overton window-shifting rhetorical tactic that gets on my nerves because it actually works against a movement. Even if you didn't realize you were doing it.

Regarding the opinion on terror rhetoric though, I do think it's a fine strategy to call what cars do to our street like terrorism. It's usually not definitional political terrorism (Usually), but the situation we have today required political choices which have resulted in actual terror on our streets. It's a bold choice of words, and sometimes you have to be bold to hammer home a point.

And on that count... It should be "crash", not "accident". "Accident" partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.

Alright, back into my pedantist cage.

We need to start using differently terminology. While injury and deaths prevented by such an island may not rise to the level of “terrorism”, they’re no “accident”. When it’s reckless endangerment, that’s not accidental.

The correct way to prevent car based terror of pedestrians was invented in ireland a century ago. I think there's a drink named after it.

That or random anti vehicle mines.

We definitely have in Melbourne, bollards in many places because of a couple of vehicular attacks in the CBD

not settled on bollards?

I remember, maybe last year, there was city "debate" over installing bollards at intersections to protect cyclists and pedestrians. From what I recall, NIMBYs pushed HARD against the idea, saying it was "confusing" and "dangerous" for motorists...

Anything to save lives or improve safety tends to be an automatic "NO!" in most places because of NIMBYs.

That's why certain safety projects should just move forward without public input.

In Oslo in Norway there's these really big and heavy cast iron flower pots. Wish more places used something like this. Something that's also pretty or serves some other purpose.

Republican stranglehold on finances makes bollards price prohibitive.

I'm so thrilled right now that we've gotten a bunch of bollards installed in my neighborhood, even in some places to cordon off entire blocks or direct traffic only for right turns. It's possible that I'm noticing the benefit more than someone who isn't as enthusiastic about this stuff as I am but it just feels like it lightens the whole mood and comfort level of the area.

They have in some places. Most large events inside german cities have bollards now in my experience.

Down with the empty patches of grass and up with the masses of trees and bushes!! Here here!

I’ll disagree with that one for this use case. Usually trees are a great answer, but we’re looking for something that can reliably protect people’s lives while maintaining good sight lines. A tree is not enough.

car children are just car terrorists in training after all.

Since 1931, technology has evolved from big rock, to big retractable pole.

I think cars are pretty terrifying most of the time. And that's the point. We're supposed to be terrified to use the roads, because we might be run over. That's terrorism. They even told us it's our own fault when we die, because using the roads is "jaywalking".

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