Computer-Modeled Panic

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: G. Keith Still

In July this year, 12 people died when a nervous crowd rushed to flee the Harare National Sports Stadium during a World Cup tie. On May 31 last year, 54 people died as commuters pushed to get out of the rain at a train station in Belarus. And in 1990, as many as 1,426 people died in a stampede through a tunnel in Mecca. These are but a few of the many crowd disasters that have occured during this past decade alone. Although the panic behavior that caused these deaths is not uncommon, a good explanation is.

In today's issue of Nature, however, Dirk Helbing of the Dresden University of Tehnology, Tamas Vicsek and Ill¿s J. Farkas of Hungary's E¿tv¿s Lor¿nd University offer some new insight. Knowing that people in crowds tend to want to move in a particular direction and at a certain speed, they created a computer model, based on self-driven many-particle systems, to simulate the motions of a group trying to exit a room by a single door.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What they discovered was that pandemonium breaks loose when the average desired velocity of the crowd reaches a critical level--a point at which the need for speed becomes greater than the need to avoid collisions. They also ran simulations in which they assumed the crowd could not see the exits. Here, too, individuals struggled with a balancing act, pitting their tendency to follow the herd against their desire to find an escape route; the model showed that a mix of both worked best. Now the researchers are calling for additional data and video footage, hoping to refine the model into something that provides practical ways to engineer against crowd disasters.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe