Assuming the vehicle was full, that's ~5 dead. What about the 4 other deaths and the 40 injuries?
Now, slightly off-topic, but I don't like words like "collateral damage".
It's not a building demolition we're talking about, in this context collateral damage is newspeak for "innocent bystanders murdered".
If someone did an attack on some target in the US, even a deplorable one (like some bloodthirsty third world dictator living there to avoid prosecution in his country), would anyone in the media dare to speak about innocent nearby people killed as "collateral damage"?
It's equally bad, and very racist to use this word exclusively in the case of third world, middle-eastern, etc people.
It's so well known a term among people that it doesn't even do a good job of masking or downplaying what it actually means anymore.
One is from Malawi.
Two refer to a report comparing "collateral damage" in balistic tests (in gelatin used for the testing, not people).
Another is from people outraged at the police risking people to be "collateral damage", another one is a freetype font with the same name, etc etc.