Seven years ago when I was running Calpipe Security Bollards, I struck up a casual friendship with a gentleman who wrote for Penton Media.  Riccardo Davis ended up writing a timely and very informative article about people driving into shopping malls that ran in Retail Traffic Magazine.  The title of the piece was "CURBING THE MALL DRIVE-THRU" and I am pleased that the link from 2007 is still live -- read this excellent article HERE.

That article discussed three incidents in less than a year where someone drove into malls and caused considerable damage inside to stores and merchandise, as well as to the mall structure itself.  The point was made that for anti-terrorist or anti-theft reasons alone, mall owners should make the investment to protect mall entrances -- protecting malls from malicious drivers or clueless drivers would be an added bonus.

Fast forward seven years.  2500 days later.  And drivers are STILL driving through unprotected shopping malls in the United States.  This time, an 83 year-old driver drove right up an ADA ramp, through a front door, and several hundred feet down a main aisle with people and shoppers and stores in front and on both sides.  He finally crashed into a vacant space at the end of the aisle.

Hudson Mall clearly did not anticipate that anyone would ever drive an SUV up the ADA access ramp from the parking lot, or they would have taken simple measures to prevent it.......What confuse me is how could they NOT know how often this happens?  The three malls mentioned in the article were all owned by national mall companies, and the owner of this mall is a very sophisticated real estate investor.  So WHY so much trouble learning simple lessons that others have learned so much better?

Watch this video coverage from NJ.com -- it is proof that these accidents can and will happen here, there, and every where.  And think to yourself -- what if the next driver is not an innocent and confused driver, but an angry, malicious driver intent on harming people?

There were no reports of injuries this time, but damage will be in the many tens of thousands of dollars.  And an 83 year-old may lose his license.  I hope that this time, the lesson that got swept under the rug for seven years will finally take root -- after all, an accident like that could have just as easily sent a dozen people to the hospital.  What investor or shareholder wants to have to deal with that kind of problem when solutions are so simple, so proven, and so inexpensive?

Dunkin Donuts, you have been on notice for a long time that your store designs and lack of safety barriers put your customers at risk and put employees working inside at risk.  Hundreds of accidents over the years, dozens of injuries documented, tragic fatalities, and still no action.  And now, another preventable accident, another preventable injury, and another failure to take basic safety precaution to prevent a simple vehicle incursion incident from becoming a vehicle-into-building accident.  This latest example occurred in West Bridgewater,
Massachusetts this weekend, when a Toyota jumped a curb and struck a man entering the store.

See the great coverage from Maria Papadopoulos at the West Bridgewater Enterprise HERE.  Scott Eisen gets photo credit for the photo, which in addition to showing how the car jumped the curb and how the pedestrian entering the glass door was completely unprotected, also clearly proves once again that wheel stops do not stop anything.  Dunkin Donuts, stop wasting money on ineffective concrete trip hazards and invest just a little more in an actual steel bollard that meets ASTM specifications!

The Storefront Safety Council has assembled data on more that 7,500 crashes to date and with every month we learn more about the causes of vehicle-into-building accidents and how frequently certain type of businesses are struck.  Month after month, coffee stores and restaurants are among the most often struck -- and month after month, Dunkin Donuts appears on the list, all too often involving injuries to patrons and employees.  For a link to 2012 statistics, click HERE

Dunkin Donuts, you know how often your stores and those of your franchisees are struck.  You cannot pretend that these crashes are rare and unusual.  You are on notice that this situation is a persistent unsafe and hazardous condition and you have chosen to not correct this condition.  Greater liability awards in cases just like this one in West Bridgewater will be the result.  Underwriters and insurance carriers, now you are on notice that higher judgements will result because of the failure on the part of Dunkin Donuts to spend (or specify for franchisees) just a few thousand dollars per store in needed safety equipment.  And plaintiff attorneys, you are also on notice -- plenty of admissible evidence exists that should be included in personal injury claims against Dunkin Donuts.

The press in Orange County Florida, scene of a recent fatal crash into a KinderCare day care center, is reporting that local officials are beginning the process to study the extent of various vulnerable locations in the area and to begin to look for "best practices" to use as the basis of a local ordinance requiring safety barriers at such facilities.  (For excellent coverage, see the Orlando Sentinel coverage HERE.)

As readers of this blog and the many members of the Storefront Safety Council LinkedIn group are aware, these types of crashes are very common.  With regard to the efforts of city and county officials to determine what types of barriers might be effective, affordable, and suitable for inclusion in any local ordinance that they may consider, I suggest a review of the information included in these pages, as well as that which is available on the Storefront Safety Council website.  In addition, there is additional information available for review in Standardization News, the magazine for ASTM International.  ASTM is in the process of finalizing a test standard for low-speed (non-highway) barriers and bollards which would be suitable for applications such as day care centers, medical clinics, senior centers, and other exposed facilities.  For information on the Low Speed Vehicle Barrier standard see the ASTM article HERE.

I first advocated for the creation of this standard seven years ago;  it was very apparent that the standards and engineering that were applied to anti-terrorist barriers and highway safety barriers were not appropriate for applications in front of strorefronts, restaurants, and child care centers.  As our research continued and we began to get a better handle on how frequent these crashes are and the extent of the monetary damages, injuries, and fatalities that resulted from them, others in the industry stepped up to take this problem on.  To their credit, ASTM agreed that this was a suitable area of study and an area in need of regulation.  As the Orlando Sentinel report shows, there is not at this time a national standard for either the types of barriers to be deployed, or the types of places where they should be required.  This proposed standard goes a long way to making a national standard practical.

Here is an excerpt from the introduction for the proposed standard:

"A majority of applications for barriers is to protect people or property from accidental or intentional vehicle incursions. One example is protecting pedestrians or students from vehicles on adjacent surface streets. Another example is protecting store fronts or mall entrances from vehicles which might approach at high speed due to operator pedal error. Anti-ram and security applications also need to be addressed, for those times when vehicles are employed as a means to gain illegal access. Currently no testing standards exist, and consequently, specifiers do not know what type of products to deploy and how to qualify either a product or a manufacturer. As a result, the public is left undefended in too many instances."  Full text can be found HERE.

The science of vehicle barriers is well known, and the engineering is not difficult.  There is no need to spend fortunes and there is no need to turn the front of buildings into fortresses.  Preventing vehicle incursions is something that is done efficiently, effectively and affordably every day in retail areas, school campuses, pedestrian areas, and commercial and municipal buildings. 

I applaud the efforts in Orange County to find best practices, and after a determination, to enact an ordinance that requires such safety measures in front of at-risk facilities.  I would just remind everyone that storefront crashes like the one at KinderCare happen 50 to 60 times EVERY DAY.  Please do your research, make your determinations, and get your ordinance in place.  Kids, teachers, and parents are at risk every day until you do.

And it doesn't have to be that way.