At some point during Sunday’s pro-Palestine march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, NSW Police decided to send geo-targeted text messages asking participants to stop walking north. The concern, they said, was a potential bottleneck at the northern end of the bridge, where dispersal options and train access were limited.

Was it an overreaction? Was there a genuine crowd safety risk?

I believe it’s not fair to judge the police response simply because no disaster occurred. In real-time risk management, you rarely have complete information. You act based on estimated probabilities and the potential severity of consequences if things go wrong. And when the potential consequence is serious harm or death, even a low likelihood can justify taking action.

Pro-Palestine protesters march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday.Credit: Janie Barrett

In this case, having considered the risk factors and the level of uncertainty involved, I believe police acted in the interest of public safety.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge is not a narrow structure; it’s almost 50 metres wide. But any fixed piece of infrastructure can become overwhelmed if enough people are on it. Once a crowd is committed to the bridge, there are no lateral escape routes or soft dispersal zones. That makes it harder to manage crowd pressure or respond quickly if something goes wrong.

The Supreme Court ruling that gave the go-ahead for the event came less than 24 hours before it took place. That left very little time for anyone to carry out formal crowd-flow analysis or a proper risk assessment. As a result, safety on the day depended almost........

© The Sydney Morning Herald