Vancouver SUV attack exposes crowd management falldowns and casts a pall on Canada’s election
At least 11 people died in a Vancouver SUV attack deemed to have a ‘low threat level’ by police. What goes into making that calculation, and is a public event ever truly low-risk?
The carnage along a street lined with food trucks took place shortly after one of the men vying to become Canada’s prime minister — New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh — attended the event. A shell-shocked Singh observed a moment of silence in Penticton, B.C., during another campaign stop the next day.
Vancouver police say the suspect has mental health issues and was known to police prior to the attack. Police also told a news conference there was no indication there was a need for extra policing at the festival, deeming it to have a “low threat level.”
What goes into making that calculation, and is a public event ever truly low-risk?
Vancouver police hold a news conference on the SUV attack. (CTV News)
Difficulties of crowd management
The Vancouver SUV attack is now classified as a crowd-related or mass gathering type of disaster. There have been cases of public vehicle-ramming attacks in Canada in the past, in particular the 2018 Toronto van attack that left 10 people dead.
Unfortunately, many mass gathering events do not allocate either sufficient resources or time for crowd management procedures, particularly those related to risk and emergency management.
Organizing mass gathering events in public spaces should factor in different threats, including the potential for car ramming, and implement effective mitigation and preparedness measures.
‘Soft targets’
Many public spaces where these events take place are vulnerable to car attacks. Evidence shows that mass gatherings are soft targets, meaning they’re easily accessible to large numbers of people and have limited security, protective and warning measures in place. Extreme precautions are needed to protect the public from such attacks so that they don’t become mass casualty events.
Those in attendance should be aware that public spaces generally lack physical barriers, or the proper distribution of them, to resist car or vehicle attacks.
While public awareness programs exist for other hazards such as flooding, earthquakes and extreme weather events, it’s now clear that such awareness and education are needed for mass public gatherings too.
Police should be aware that relying on limited surveillance may not be sufficient to identify such threats at the scene. Vehicle access and traffic control should be in place throughout such events. Lack of warning systems to quickly inform the crowd about an ongoing attack further increases the impacts of vehicular attacks.
Much of the focus on these types of events has been on the motivations of the attackers. Since a considerable number of vehicle-ramming attacks have been attributed to terrorism, communities or events with the perception of lower terrorism threats may not pay close enough attention to this type of threat.
Canadians aren’t likely to get many more details about the Vancouver attack until after voting day on Monday. Could the tragedy have an impact on the outcome of the federal election?
Past and recent studies have drawn different conclusions about the impact of disasters on election results.
According to what’s known as retrospective voting theory, voters judge governments on how they manage disasters, particularly highly publicized, tragic events, when casting their ballots. Voters can evaluate governments based on their handling of the disaster and the amount of effort they have put into minimizing risk.
Voters can and do punish or reward governments and elected politicians based on the effects of recent disasters on them and governments’ responses to them.
Hopefully, however, it will have an influence on how organizers, police and other authorities manage public crowds and events at a time when vehicle-ramming attacks are becoming a recurrent threat. Those elected this election should prioritize efforts to ensure communities can have safer mass gathering events.
Ali Asgary does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
