Mitigating Vehicle Ramming Threats with Layered Protection
Families gathered along the Promenade des Anglais on a warm evening in July 2016 in Nice, France, to watch Bastille Day fireworks. The air was festive and the streets alive with laughter until the driver of a 19-ton cargo truck intentionally accelerated through the crowd. The driver killed 86 people in a matter of minutes by using only the weight and speed of the vehicle. In that short time, the truck was no longer an ordinary vehicle—it was transformed into a weapon.
Vehicle ramming incidents like this are not anomalies; they are a persistent and evolving threat to urban environments, corporate campuses, transportation hubs, events, and other public-facing facilities. The attack method is frighteningly simple. A motivated actor can turn a rental truck, delivery van, or high-performance electric car into a deadly kinetic weapon with little preparation.
The appeal of such attacks lies in the low barrier to execution. This tactic has been employed by a broad spectrum of adversaries, from organized extremist groups to lone actors fueled by ideology, politics, or personal grievance. Threat actors choose their targets for their accessibility and crowd density, such as markets, pedestrian plazas, and cultural venues.
As for the weapons themselves, vehicles have changed during the past 10 years in ways that unintentionally increase their lethality. Modern electric vehicles (EVs) and semi-autonomous platforms are heavier, quieter, and often feature near-instant acceleration, making them more dangerous in hostile scenarios compared to vehicles powered by internal combustion engines.
In the early years of recorded vehicle ramming attacks, perpetrators typically used readily available vehicles such as trucks, vans, or passenger cars to strike unprotected public spaces. But the playing field has changed. Larger, heavier SUVs and pickup trucks now dominate roadways in the United States, while EVs (with dense battery packs and reinforced chassis) often outweigh their gasoline-powered counterparts, largely thanks to the weight of the batteries. For example, a full-size electric pickup truck may weigh 30 to 40 percent more than a nearly identical gas-powered pickup—a 2023 gas-powered Ford 150 pickup truck weighs approximately 4,060 pounds, while its electric counterpart clocks in at 6,015 pounds. This extra mass translates into greater kinetic energy, which in turn increases the likelihood that a determined attacker could breach traditional barriers.
Acceleration capability has also transformed the threat dynamic. A typical internal combustion engine vehicle might take 8 to 10 seconds to reach highway speeds. By comparison, high-performance EVs can reach the same speed in less than 4 seconds, and over much shorter distances. This compresses both the time and space for detection of and response to a threat, giving defenders less opportunity to act. It can also undermine traditional traffic-calming designs.
Adding to the challenge, EVs operate with low acoustic signatures—or in layman’s terms, these vehicles can run stealthily, quietly cruising along. The absence of engine noise removes a vital early-warning cue, particularly in noisy or visually cluttered environments, giving humans and detection systems less time to react.
The danger might not end upon impact since an EV’s damaged lithium-ion battery packs can ignite, explode, or release toxic gases, transforming an already violent vehicle attack into a hazardous materials incident.
Meanwhile, autonomous vehicles include features that can introduce the potential for remote-controlled or pre-programmed ramming attacks, possibly removing the attacker from the scene altogether and making intervention harder.
These realities highlight the need for barrier systems that are rated not only for higher energy loads but also for multidirectional impacts, as well as detection systems that can identify silent, high-speed approaches. Post-crash response plans should specifically address battery fires and hazardous materials containment. The lesson is clear: the threat is dynamic, and defenses must evolve in both design and deployment to keep pace.
From the perspective of protective design engineering—a discipline that integrates architecture, engineered barriers, operational procedures, and technology to safeguard people and assets—mitigating this threat requires more than one defensive measure. It calls for layered protection, which involves multiple, complementary systems working together to detect, deter, delay, and defeat an attack before it reaches high-value targets.
Principles of Layered Protection
Layered protection applies multiple, overlapping security measures so that no single point of failure can lead to catastrophe. In vehicle ramming mitigation, these layers aim to detect and deter, delay and deflect, stop and contain, and respond and recover.
Detection and deterrence. These first two elements discourage hostile intentions and create a space for early intervention. Solutions such as visible patrols, signage indicating restricted access to certain areas, open sightlines, and conspicuous security cameras create an environment that feels monitored and harder to exploit. Artificial intelligence (AI) enabled surveillance adds the ability to analyze real-time driving patterns for anomalies.
Organizations with these elements, however, can risk over-relying on technology, especially if there is a lack of trained human oversight. This can lead to false positives or missed cues, eroding trust in the system.
Delay and deflection. Here is where more subtle security features are found, such as reinforced street furniture, strategic landscaping, serpentine approaches, or retractable barriers that can slow or redirect a vehicle’s approach. These measures buy time for the next defensive layer because a determined or well-informed attacker can use a heavy, high-powered vehicle to force his or her way through, especially if the measures lack effective stopping capacity.
Stopping and containing. Measures in this category are ones that make up the last line of physical defense. Certified crash-rated bollards and barriers—those manufactured and tested to standards like ASTM F2656, ASTM F3016, PAS-68, and ISO 22343—are engineered to absorb and dissipate kinetic energy. When it comes to bollards and barriers, certification matters because decorative posts and uncertified barriers can fail catastrophically. Urban sites often require that their barriers are low-embedment or surface-anchored systems, which should be integrated with architectural design to maintain functionality and aesthetics.
Real-world incidents have demonstrated that well-placed, certified bollard and barrier systems can halt hostile vehicles within feet of the intended targets, while underperforming installations have allowed deep penetration into protected areas.
Maintenance of these systems is also critical; even the best-rated system can fail if neglected.
Response and recovery. When an attack breaches the other defenses, it’s time to rely on measures that can mitigate the damage. Even though the fastest and most effective response cannot undo the initial harm. Rapid lockdown procedures, public communication strategies, lithium-ion-specific firefighting equipment, and coordination with emergency services are vital.
In practice, there are several ways that these layers can work together to achieve a stronger security posture against a vehicle attack. Consider the following examples.
At a corporate headquarters in a dense urban environment, for instance, the building’s outer perimeter might feature open sightlines, restricted vehicle signage, and AI-enabled cameras monitoring for abnormal driving behavior. Further from the building, there are arrays of planters and curbs that subtly channel vehicles away from pedestrian areas. Closer to the building, crash-rated, low-embedment bollards blend into the architecture. Inside, trained staff are at the ready with EV-specific response protocols, trained in lithium-ion fire containment so even if the outer layers fail, the damage is mitigated.
Or consider a retail store with a modest budget. Here, deterrence comes from benches, bike racks, and planters that block direct approaches without creating a fortress-like appearance. Raised curbs and speed bumps slow vehicles down, while temporary-rated barriers are deployed during busy shopping periods. Staff coordinate with local first responders and keep specialized extinguishers and fire blankets on hand.
Both scenarios apply the same principles but tailor them to different risk profiles, budgets, and environments, proving that layered protection is adaptable and not one-size-fits-all.
Engineering Considerations for Modern Vehicles
Today’s threat environment demands a performance-based approach—essentially, designing and engineering protective measures to match the actual, quantifiable risks of a given site instead of relying on prescriptive formulas. Without this, security designs risk underestimating the force of heavier, faster vehicles, and overestimating the strength of outdated barriers.
While crash-rating standards provide essential benchmarks, they often omit EV-specific factors such as rapid torque delivery and post-impact battery hazards. Urban constraints such as narrow sidewalks, buried utilities, or architectural preservation rules require creative solutions like modular, low-embedment, or surface-anchored systems.
To help identify and develop solutions, consider using advanced modeling that integrates EV acceleration curves, higher kinetic energy profiles, and multi-directional attack scenarios. These computer programs can simulate how pedestrians might be affected by impacts, helping refine protective layouts. Security barriers must perform regardless of wherever the impact comes from—head-on, angled, or lateral. In modern protective design, the objective is not simply a “bollard line” but an integrated, site-specific solution balancing safety, functionality, aesthetics, and cost efficiency.
Because no two sites will share the same risk profile, operational environment, or community context, it’s crucial to start with a threat, vulnerability, and risk assessment. This process evaluates the likelihood of an attack, potential consequences, and site-specific constraints.
Human-Centric and Operational Layers
At the end of the day, neither physical barriers nor technological savvy can close every gap; human awareness and operational readiness are essential to effective layered protection.
Security staff should be trained to identify pre-attack behaviors such as slow passes, unauthorized stops, or erratic vehicle movements. Staff should also be empowered to act immediately in response to red flags. Beyond initial training, regular drills will keep lockdown and evacuation procedures second nature.
Meanwhile, operational policies can prevent incidents before they occur. Controlling delivery schedules, verifying vendor credentials, and closing streets during high-attendance events are just a few operational layers that can create friction for potential attackers and reduce opportunities for hostile approaches.
Public awareness initiatives like “See Something, Say Something” work because they are simple, familiar, and accessible to everyone. They lower the barrier to participation, turning ordinary citizens into force multipliers. The limit to these initiatives is inconsistency because success depends on awareness, a willingness to report, and the capacity of responders to act on tips. Still, they have disrupted planned attacks, including the 2010 Times Square car bomb attempt, when a street vendor’s quick action prompted an evacuation before detonation.
Recommendations for Adapting to Emerging Threats
While the above considerations can help security anticipate, deter, mitigate, and resolve against a more modern vehicle attack, EVs and autonomous vehicles are present-day proof that the threat environment evolves. Security must be treated as a living system, and the following considerations can help:
- Regularly review risk models to reflect changes in vehicle technology, attacker tactics, and the built environment.
- Engage in multidisciplinary collaboration with engineers, architects, urban planners, cybersecurity specialists, transportation officials, and first responders to produce the most effective strategies.
- Use modular and scalable barrier systems and protective designs to adapt to evolving threats. Detection systems should integrate advanced technologies such as AI analytics, radar, and LIDAR to identify abnormal vehicle approaches regardless of speed or sound profile.
- Ensure recovery plans go beyond the initial incident to address fires, hazardous materials, potential secondary attacks, and the psychological recovery of the community.
Mitigating vehicle ramming threats today demands far more than installing barriers. It requires a layered, adaptive, and performance-based approach that integrates physical, operational, and technological measures.
As vehicles grow heavier, faster, and more autonomous, protective design must keep pace or get ahead. Layered protection—grounded in site-specific risk assessments and delivered through vendor-neutral consulting—remains the most resilient path forward. In an age where ordinary objects can be weaponized in seconds, the pace of security must match or even exceed the pace of technology.
Pedram Hesam, PhD, PSP, is the chief technology officer of PNH Sec, specializing in advanced protective design engineering, physical security consulting, and resilience engineering. With more than 17 years of experience, he is an expert in vehicle ramming mitigation, blast protection, and structural dynamics. Hesam has led high-profile projects for government and commercial sectors and integrates simulation modeling, immersive training, and advanced analytics into security solutions.
Herbert Ubbens, CPP, PSP, is the president of Paratus Consultants Group and an internationally recognized security and risk management expert with more than 30 years of experience protecting critical infrastructure and high-traffic public venues. He specializes in threat, vulnerability, and risk assessments (TVRAs), crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), and layered security strategies for complex environments. Ubbens actively contributes to national security frameworks through ASTM F12, SIA Perimeter Security Group, and NYPD SHIELD.
