Talk:Vehicle-ramming attack

article title
New York Times calling them: "deadly vehicular assaults" |ShulMaven] (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

comment re AfD closure
I didn't get back in time with links and points about why "terrorism/terrorist" is POV and subject to interpretation but whatever; what's "odd" here is that the title was moved during the AfD, which seems to be against procedure. Noting that it was done by the same editor who authored the Saint Jean sur Richelieu article with statements that were not in sources, as claimed, and who regularly POV-edits that article with false edit statements.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

9/11
This article is about car-ramming but lists 9/11, which wasn't a car-ramming attack. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's more about trucks and heavy vehicles than cars and should be renamed. Ericoides (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Moved to "Vehicle-ramming attack"
I've moved this article from "Car-ramming attack" to the title "Vehicle-ramming attack". This matches the terminology used in the cited sources, and also reflects the fact that recent severe incidents have all involved the use of large vehicles, not cars. -- The Anome (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Vehicle ramming Incident?
Many vehicle ramming incidents such as the 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash look like or charged as deliberate ramming attacks later have charges dropped as the accused successfully convince authorities they were having a medical or blackout episode. It is also entirely possible that a deliberate attack can be have been successfully staged as an accident if it is impossible to prove a motive or if authorities accept an alternative explanation. In any case, the accidental crashes cause as much damage, injury or death as the deliberate ones. While it is a good idea to tie together all deliberate attacks whether or not they have terrorist motives, this should include any out-of-control or at least out-of-legal-control driving which results in at least as much terror as a politically motivated attack. Bachcell (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes about as much sense as merging Controlled flight into terrain with Suicide by pilot - i.e. none at all. There is an absolutely fundamental difference (in law, in morality, and in how people respond to them) between deliberate attacks and accidents. Iapetus (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bombings not rammings
Incidents in which the vehicle was primarily used to deliver a bomb should not be in this list.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.165.93 (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
How about merging this article with Ram-raiding ? The latter seems to be about building raming, but the principle remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonztop (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Vehicle-ramming attacks are a method of assault and/or murder, while ram-raiding appears to be associated with property crimes involving theft. I suggest the differing motives are sufficient to keep these articles separate. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal Heidelberg attack
The 2017 Heidelberg attack is not notable enough to have it's own page. I propose a merger to this page. The attack does not seem to have been discusses in the news media since that news cycle, nor is it particularly noteworthy. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NOTNEWS, flash in the pan news story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the article is very small – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the article is very small – not independently notable.Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stronly oppose - there is no need to delete valuable content, which would most probably occur by a merger. Metron (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose driver plows into pedestrians and emerges from attack vehicle holding a knife in his hand. Police shoot and kill him. International coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - A brief WP:NOTNEWS incident with no WP:LASTING impact. WP:RECENTICISM and WP:EVENTCRIT also apply. it has almost been three months and consensus leans toward merging. Given the added factor that oppose votes ignore using actual policies, merging appears to be more beneficial. Can you close this soon and act on merging? I can offer help if you need it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Can a vehicle-ramming attack be used in self defense?
I have seen some suggestions that the Unite the Right rally ramming was a provoked attack, possibly even self defense. Leaving aside that particular incident, it got me wondering under what conditions a vehicular attack is regarded as self defense, analogous to a knife attack being used as self defense.

I found this site -- "What Should You Do If Protestors Surround Your Car?" https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/protestors-surround-car/ (archive: http://archive.is/UdYCc) which argues that the same rules should apply as for any self defense: if you have a legitimate fear for your life, you can use force to save yourself. However "unless you can articulate a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, you can’t use your car as a deadly weapon by driving over people or accelerating through the crowd." I have seen people bring up the case of the attack on Reginald Denny as a case where this option should have been taken.

On a related note, what do we want the desired 'undertone' of this article to be:


 * Like the Stabbing article, which describes the act fairly neutrally without implications of murderous intent.
 * Like the Stabbing as a terrorist tactic article, which addresses intentional attacks done with the purpose of murdering.

Should we create an analogous split? Any thoughts? --Nanite (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Nanite, Certainly it can be used in self-defense. If you want an interesting career, you can take a course for drivers of people requiring security in insecure countries in which the drivers are trained to drive over and though rioters, protestors, terrorists, and kidnappers - with the preservation of the lives and safety of the vehicle's passengers given priority over those of the mob blocking the road.  It is also what ordinary people do when politics and insurgencies topple law and order the world over.  If you have never lived in such a place, count yourself fortunate for being able to ask such a an innocent question.  Americans have no idea how privileged they are, not by wealth and power, but by being able to ask a question like this, a question that reveals the chasm that separates people who have always lived in countries that abide by the rule of law, and much of the world.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail criticised Wikipedia
Jihadi propaganda describing how to launch a van attack is STILL available to view on Wikipedia as the internet giant is accused of 'aiding terrorism' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4804050/Jihadi-propaganda-available-view-Wikipedia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredericknoronha (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See Talk:2017_Barcelona_attack/Archive_1. It looks like this material has been removed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

List of vehicle-ramming attacks
Can we fork the list over to List of vehicle-ramming attacks? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Antwerp "attack"?
The Antwerp attack was not really an attack. It was a criminal trying to escape the police who drove in a pedestrian street. The terrorism charges were dropped: see. It should not appear here. BrightRaven (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Attack by shoving somebody under the train
What about attack by shoving somebody under the train? Is it a subvariety of vehicle-ramming attack or is it other thing? Last months it seems to be a popular murder style in Europe :( And I mean it should have some article on Wikipedia. --Palu (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"The earliest known use of a vehicle-ramming attack took place in 1973 in Prague, former Czechoslovakia..."
This can't possibly be true. We've had vehicles for, like, all of recorded history but the earliest known vehicle ramming attack was 1973 in Prague? Surely the Romans were ramming chariots into visigoths way back in the day, right? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

What determines whether it's terroristic or not?
Typically, it's an attack intended to change political actions... what other motive then do those have who ram into BLM protesters if not to stop them protesting, which is a political statement? How is Heather's ram terroristic but not the recent ones, despite having indistinguishable contexts? 80.42.14.7 (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a terrorist incident if investigators decide this and say so publicly. It's not a terrorist incident based on the opinion of media reports.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased language, politics, and added context
The whole sentence about Fox news "encouraging" people to run over protestors is ridiculous and shouldn't be in the article. If anyone took the time to actually see what Fox news said that is being mentioned they said that if protestors are blocking the road its okay to drive through them. We saw it during the BLM protests, obviously they're not talking about mowing them down, they're saying that you drive through at a rate where they're forced to leave the road. I'm pretty sure they even specified that in the clip that's being referenced. NotFromSerbia (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)