A fatal car ramming in a crowded German city square has refocused attention on the use of vehicles by people seeking to attack the public.
The incident in downtown Mannheim took place on the Monday of regional Carnival celebrations. It followed weeks of warnings that potential terror attacks could take place during Germany’s pre-Easter festival period.
But the attack does not appear to be motivated by political or religious factors, and authorities are exploring the suspect’s mental health as a possible factor.
Yet the choice of a vehicle as a lethal weapon in this incident and in fatal attacks in Munich and Magdeburg in recent weeks leaves open the question: why the car?
A spate of attacks in Germany weaponize cars
Cars are useful, but their size, speed and maneuverability also make them potentially deadly.
While uncommon as a weapon, in recent years they have been more frequently used to kill or maim people. Cars became prominent as a terror weapon during a series of incidents in Israel amid ongoing conflict with local militant groups during the early 2010s.
The use of vehicles to ram public spaces was supported by the Islamic State group in the mid-2010s. In Europe, attacks in Nice — where 86 people were killed in a truck attack — Westminster Bridge in London, Barcelona and Berlin have been among the most prominent and devastating incidents.
Cars have also been used in a series of attacks in China.
Many of these attacks carried religious and political motivations and came in the wake of several radical Islamist groups calling for potential attacks using easy-to-access vehicles.
The three recent incidents in Germany have no common ideological thread.
The alleged perpetrator in the Magdeburg attacks is believed to be a Saudi national with anti-Islam beliefs.
In contrast, the suspect of the Munich killings may have had a pro-Islamist motivation, according to prosecutors.
And the suspect at the center of the Mannheim attack is believed to be a German-born individual with no history of extremist tendencies.
What they do have in common is the car.
In 2018, cultural sociologist and cultural studies expert Vincent Miller and criminologist Keith Hayward co-authored a study about the nature of car rammings as “imitative” events.
They argued they worked like “memes”, offering a model for others to replicate, rather than an ideological motivation.
Miller points to recent events in China, which have been described as “revenge on society” attacks and have resulted in perpetrators being given the death penalty.
“The people that are doing this are often quite aggrieved, there’s a sense of injustice there, a sense of anger,” Miller told DW.
In the aftermath of such attacks, there may be little definitive evidence of political or religious motives.
“Quite often they’re very spur-of-the-moment or very hastily put together forms of attack,” Miller said.
“They’re very diverse individuals: some might be Muslim radicals, some might be American right-wing activists, some people have mental health problems. The profile of the perpetrator is very hard to define. The main thing they have in common is the act.”
Even seven years on from writing their paper, Miller stands by the key argument that the thing these attacks might have in common is exposure to the action. The psychology is less easy to pin down.
“It subconsciously becomes part of the repertoire of options for people to express their anger in some way and they get exposed to it through the vectors of the media and social media.”
What can be done to prevent such attacks in future?
Pauline Paillé, a specialist in international security at RAND Europe, was involved in a 2022 report for the EU Commission exploring ways of preventing car ramming attacks.
“It’s a bit difficult to understand what the motivations are and if there is an actual pattern or if it is just a collection of isolated events,” Paillé told DW.
“I don’t think this is a threat that is unique to Europe and with regards to the psychology, I think it very much depends on the kind of motivations and political objective that those who attack have.”
RAND’s report for the EU Commission investigated how access to vehicles could be restricted, especially through rental or peer-to-peer schemes, which were utilized by suspects in the recent New Orleans ramming and Las Vagas explosion.
Raising barriers to rented vehicle access could be a useful measure. Enforcing stronger identification requirements, financial deposits and background checks are all options.
Geofencing, which creates virtual boundaries that enable authorities to remotely apply settings to smart vehicles, could hinder ramming attacks in the future. But for such technologies to work, the incident would have to be quickly identified to prevent loss of life.
Better-designed urban areas could be one of the simplest modes of mitigation.
Paillé points to creating separated roads and footpaths as an example.
“Things that make it more difficult for a vehicle to access certain spaces… I found that quite interesting in terms of thinking about public space and making sure it is usable by everyday citizens but also can help their safety,” she said.
Bollards are one option, and are commonly used in built-up areas, though Paillé said the effectiveness of physical barriers is unclear.
“Physical barriers … can be a deterrent, but it’s difficult to assess whether that’s the case or whether people are going to move on to some other means to conduct violence.”
Edited by: Jess Smee
Primary source:
