This looks like a terrible scene. Happened yesterday in Massachusetts. Also similar incident at another auto auction in MA a couple of years ago.
Case of mistaken brake pedal/ accelerator, old guy issue, or JGC issue? I know there was problems with those JGC with people mixing up the brake and accelerator. I can totally see mixing the pedals up and then causing this issue. Sad day regardless. Odd that it has happened twice around here in recent years.
Why do they drive them at all? Why not a 4 wheeler and a tow rope, or just have 6 guys push it up on stage. Similar events are hilarious when they driver roasts the tires on accident: the whole stage shifts over, everyone falls over, everyone on the internet laughs. This isnt as funny, but same problem. Ive never understood driving a car at auction. It is a case of using an axe to swat a fly.
Also odd that it wasn't a Mustang.
4cylndrfury wrote: Why do they drive them at all? Why not a 4 wheeler and a tow rope, or just have 6 guys push it up on stage.
People don't bid on cars they can't see running/moving, they want to see it works OK.
My guess is on a brake/accel mix up, it can be surprisingly nerve wracking moving a car with hundreds of people around.
Saw a lot of interesting things when I would go to auctions at my old job. Never anything to this extent, but plenty of accidents or drivers doing burnouts when they would panic after mixing up the brake/gas. Quite frankly I'm surprised it doesn't happen more given the tight quarters and questionable cars driving through.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:4cylndrfury wrote: Why do they drive them at all? Why not a 4 wheeler and a tow rope, or just have 6 guys push it up on stage.People don't bid on cars they can't see running/moving, they want to see it works OK. My guess is on a brake/accel mix up, it can be surprisingly nerve wracking moving a car with hundreds of people around.
Agreed that its brake/accel confusion.
Personally, watching a car creep up on stage at idle is not going to convince me that it is able to operate on the open road. I certainly dont think its worth the risk considering how often we see these kinds of incidents... YMMV
Driver was 78.
I don't know many 78 year old folks who have got very good reflexes.
3 people are dead, an old guy made a mistake he'll live with for the rest of his now otherwise great life, and the people who hired him will now go home at night knowing (or not) that they hired the poor guy to do this job.
Government regulation or not, we humans are not too good at looking at a situation and asking "what could go wrong?"
I have a close friend that was t-boned in a horrific accident by a 70+ year old driver that clearly shouldn't have been driving. She's been paralyzed neck down now since she was mid-late 20's and now 41 years old.
I'm a huge fan of driver testing after a certain age. (I used to think after 50, and even as I'll be 50 next month I'd still say fine.)
In reply to pheller:
You haven't met my father. Or the thousands of retired and elderly that drive 20K pound RVs up and down the highways daily. Age does not equal infirm.
That said, I do believe a professional driver should meet higher standards than a casual driver. I also think most casual drivers should meet higher standards too.
Jerry wrote: I have a close friend that was t-boned in a horrific accident by a 70+ year old driver that clearly shouldn't have been driving. She's been paralyzed neck down now since she was mid-late 20's and now 41 years old. I'm a huge fan of driver testing after a certain age. (I used to think after 50, and even as I'll be 50 next month I'd still say fine.)
Yep. I would be completely OK with this. Unfortunately, the elders tend to vote more than middle/young-aged people and would never let it happen.
Toyman01 wrote: In reply to pheller: You haven't met my father. Or the thousands of retired and elderly that drive 20K pound RVs up and down the highways daily. Age does not equal infirm. That said, I do believe a professional driver should meet higher standards than a casual driver. I also think most casual drivers should meet higher standards too.
Sorry, age absolutely does = infirmity or we wouldn't age and die. Now, a certain age does not have to equal a certain level of infirmity, but accident statistics correlate really well with age. Accidents drop at first as your 16 and 17 year olds learn situational awareness, their pre frontal cortex matures in their early 20's and they calm down, but sure as day is night accidents increase again as people get older. I'm not making a blanket statement saying that your parents or anyone in particular are now no longer capable of driving safely, but it's a proven fact that as we age our eyesight and reflexes get worse as does our decision making capabilities. I find it hard to make a logical argument against retesting for driving skills as people age. The $1billion question is when is that point 50, 55, 60, 65? etc.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
Why pick an age? Just do it every few years. Our guys are required to get a road test every other year to keep their passenger endorsement. I wouldn't think every 4-5 years would be unreasonable for a car license.
I'd be ok with a road test every 4 years or so now, and I'm 37. I jist got my florida dl, and they don't even want to see me foe another 8 years. I can only imagine some older person hitting the dementia line sometime in their 60s and carrying it deep into the weeds before they even Have to go to the tax collector.
I think an easy number to come up with is the age at which you collect SS. After that you have to take a driver's test every 2/4(?) years.
I'm sure we can spend millions of tax dollars studying the age at which accidents increase and use that number too.
My parents are in their early 70's and completely coherent. Hell, my dad still rides motocross, so I don't worry about him. Although his refusal to use turn signals drives me crazy and I would love for an instructor to call him out on it. But I'm sure there are plenty the same age that can hardly turn the steering wheel and press the brake, let alone react and avoid accidents.
And there are plenty at any age that would press the gas and no react, which is another reason why someone needs to look at the situation and say "if a perfectly health 35 year old was driving onto this stage and had a aneurysm, where would the car go?"
I will have to renew my drivers license in 2018.
Curious to see if I will have to take a test.
By you guys standards I am over the hill.
You're golden if they make you test in winter conditions. 
Wall-e wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: Why pick an age? Just do it every few years. Our guys are required to get a road test every other year to keep their passenger endorsement. I wouldn't think every 4-5 years would be unreasonable for a car license.
Because statistically age is a great predictor of decreased driving ability. You are far more likely to have an accident at 70 than at any age over around 20 even though you are doing far less miles as you are far less likely to be commuting to work, school etc at rush hour.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
True but if people had to take a written and road test regularly to keep driving maybe they'd do it better.
I find the statements here interesting. I soon will be 72 and am still racing SCCA Majors in a car that regularly goes over 120 mph and has been over 150 mph at Daytona 2 years ago. Age by itself is not the determinant. I know much younger drivers who have terrible skills and reactions.
With respect to driving cars through the lanes, it's the only way to do it. A really good size auction like Mannheim Ocoee will be running 20 or so lanes, each with a couple hundred cars, for 4 or 5 hours. You'd have the same hazard or greater trying to tow or push them (no power steering or brakes), and would need even more hired hands to do the moving. The auctions move a massive quantity of cars each week. I bet the Ocoee facility is a couple hundred acres packed with cars; it's absolutely giant.
Don49 wrote: I find the statements here interesting. I soon will be 72 and am still racing SCCA Majors in a car that regularly goes over 120 mph and has been over 150 mph at Daytona 2 years ago. Age by itself is not the determinant. I know much younger drivers who have terrible skills and reactions.
Yes, but you're an exception and you know it. If you look at the bell curve (if there were such a thing) of skillsets of 70+ year old drivers, you would fall on the far end of it. The overwhelming majority have some level of diminished skills...some more than others. Doesn't mean seniors shouldn't drive, I just agree that more testing is a good idea. Reality is with age typically come slower reflexes and reduced ability to drive.
I agree that there are plenty of younger, and young, drivers who have no business on the road. Same for middle age folks. But declining skills are nearly inevitable with age.
Father time is undefeated.
Could we have some statistics about age and accident rates instead of anecdotal evidence. I am confident that you won't find much to support your statements. What I do know is that the fatality rate for older drivers is higher, I believe that this is because accident trauma takes a higher toll.
A few years ago I helped a gentleman find his car that he'd parked and then forgotten where.
During our drive around to find it he revealed his age: 103 
I feel comfortable saying that if you can remember a time before cars exhisted, you probably shouldn't be operating one.
Drove a beige Kia btw, with no "Camry corners".
There is no need for complicated and expensive testing procedures to be put in place for all 50 individual states with different motor laws, now, at this late date.
The autonomous vehicle is right around the corner. It will allow children and the feeble alike to ride along in perfect safety.
It will be perfect.
You'll need to log in to post.
