Two RVs hit head on - Hwy 49 in California

vjstangelo wrote:
I've read on this forum that Winnebago's are the only crash worthy Class A. The reason is a caged assembly construction, but this could be BS.

Many over on the Class C forum claim that this is why they own a C, the cutaway van chassis meets the DOT specs for front end crashes while the A's do not.

Doubt it ,whats the rating ? how many stars?
The only crash tested and passenger rated MH are bluebirds and Prevost.
Steel cage indeed, most are 2x2 construction ...... garden shed spec and come apart just like the picture in the OP's lay it down and your belongings and pink insulation are spread all down the interstate .

So that means class B's are the safest. And maybe truck campers, though they seem awfully topheavy to me.

vjstangelo wrote:
I've read on this forum that Winnebago's are the only crash worthy Class A. The reason is a caged assembly construction, but this could be BS.

Many over on the Class C forum claim that this is why they own a C, the cutaway van chassis meets the DOT specs for front end crashes while the A's do not.

I don't think Winnebago's are built any different than anything in their class. Anytime that you build on top of a platform, like most motorhomes, they will come apart in a crash.

Some motorhomes might be a little stronger but they are still built on a platform chassis. Our 2008 Dynasty was stated as having a semi-monocoque chassis which probably gave it a little more rigidity but it didn't have real front and rear bumpers or really a steel cage as a whole unit.

Everybody be safe out there!
Mark

I've read on this forum that Winnebago's are the only crash worthy Class A. The reason is a caged assembly construction, but this could be BS.

Many over on the Class C forum claim that this is why they own a C, the cutaway van chassis meets the DOT specs for front end crashes while the A's do not.

hohenwald48 wrote:
I suppose if crash worthiness is an issue you would do well to buy a class "C". At least the chassis is crash tested and rated and built by a vehicle manufacturer to meet some safety standards.

I know folks often make the statement that their motorhome has a steel framed driver area. I doubt light weight 2" square tubing is much stronger than 2x3 wood framing. It's certianly not as strong as an engineered passenger space in a class "C" with hard point mounted seatbelts and airbags.

I've seen class "A" seat belts attached with lag bolts in 2x4's.

I wonder when something will be done about all the cell phone/texting distracted drivers on the road these days? How many have to die before our legislators say "enough" to the cell phone lobby? It would only take a simple software patch to at least disable texting when a modern GPS enabled cell phone is going more than x MPH. But that might hurt phone sales for Apple and others.

Couple of things, yes Class C chassis have been crash tested, but I don't know about you, I've never seen a full Class C motorhome with the motorhome body and camping gear and fluids and propane and all crash tested. I'd me more than willing to wager that you are safer in a Class A than you are in a Class C simply because in a Class A you are sitting up above the vast majority of other vehicles on the road. If you are going to run head in into a medium size SUV, I personally would rather do it in a Class A where I'll be above the other vehicle, versus a Class C where I'll be down at the same level as the impacting vehicle.

Next point, restricting phones based on GPS speed will never happen as that means no phone use by passengers in the car, passengers in the bus, passengers on the train, etc.

DrewE wrote:

hohenwald48 wrote:

I wonder when something will be done about all the cell phone/texting distracted drivers on the road these days? How many have to die before our legislators say "enough" to the cell phone lobby? It would only take a simple software patch to at least disable texting when a modern GPS enabled cell phone is going more than x MPH. But that might hurt phone sales for Apple and others.

Grossman's Misquote of H. L. Mencken (from Murphey's Law, book two):
"Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers."

Tying phone function to the phone's speed seems to me to be an example of this, and one that's often suggested as a way to eliminate this sort of distracted driving. The problem is that there are many common occasions where one may be traveling at speed but not driving: as a passenger in a car, or bus, or train, for instance; and at such times texting is a perfectly valid and safe thing to do.

True. But until someone comes up with a solution to that issue why don't we save a few lives in the meantime. Nobody really "needs" to text, ever, even when they are a passenger. We went for centuries without it. I can always spot the folks in front of me who are on the phone. Their speed varies up and down about 10-15 miles every 30 seconds or so.

Couple of months ago a young lady was driving down the highway about a mile from my house and veered across the center line. Killed her and her 2 year old baby daughter in the backseat. Investigation revealed she was posting something on Facebook at the time of the accident. While travelling at 60 MPH.

hohenwald48 wrote:

I wonder when something will be done about all the cell phone/texting distracted drivers on the road these days? How many have to die before our legislators say "enough" to the cell phone lobby? It would only take a simple software patch to at least disable texting when a modern GPS enabled cell phone is going more than x MPH. But that might hurt phone sales for Apple and others.

Grossman's Misquote of H. L. Mencken (from Murphey's Law, book two):
"Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers."

Tying phone function to the phone's speed seems to me to be an example of this, and one that's often suggested as a way to eliminate this sort of distracted driving. The problem is that there are many common occasions where one may be traveling at speed but not driving: as a passenger in a car, or bus, or train, for instance; and at such times texting is a perfectly valid and safe thing to do.

I suppose if crash worthiness is an issue you would do well to buy a class "C". At least the chassis is crash tested and rated and built by a vehicle manufacturer to meet some safety standards.

I know folks often make the statement that their motorhome has a steel framed driver area. I doubt light weight 2" square tubing is much stronger than 2x3 wood framing. It's certianly not as strong as an engineered passenger space in a class "C" with hard point mounted seatbelts and airbags.

I've seen class "A" seat belts attached with lag bolts in 2x4's.

I wonder when something will be done about all the cell phone/texting distracted drivers on the road these days? How many have to die before our legislators say "enough" to the cell phone lobby? It would only take a simple software patch to at least disable texting when a modern GPS enabled cell phone is going more than x MPH. But that might hurt phone sales for Apple and others.

Glad to see there was no fire. With that amount of damage, there could easily have been. That would have made things exponentially worse in short order.

Chum lee

grant135b wrote:
I was a first responder for over twenty years. Belted-in people occasionally die anyway in crashes but they are far outweighed by the number of unbelted people who die who most likely would have survived with minor or no injuries if they had been belted into their seat. I can't even count the number of people I saw over the years who died or were severely injured (permanently paralysed, brain damage, etc) from being ejected, some of whom were then crushed or otherwise run over by their own vehicle. The seat they had been thrown out of? Intact.......

X2