Another Likely RV Brake Failure Crash

rockhillmanor wrote:
Except those statistics are based on daily drivers of tens of thousands of cars.

Are there MH's included in those figures most likely at a very small percentage.

So when you figure in the disproportionate yearly average miles driven on the road of an RV. The overall percentages don't work for the RV.

For example my guess is there are far more fires on the road involving RV's than there are of cars. Yet the figures would include ALL vehicles.

I don't know about the fire thing. I put a lot of miles in for work and play and have seen my share of fires. Not one was a RV.

How would YOU handle any driving emergency that might come your way, while driving a motorhome? You'll never know unless it happens to you, OR you are tested in a certified full-motion simulator.

Except those statistics are based on daily drivers of tens of thousands of cars.

Are there MH's included in those figures most likely at a very small percentage.

So when you figure in the disproportionate yearly average miles driven on the road of an RV. The overall percentages don't work for the RV.

For example my guess is there are far more fires on the road involving RV's than there are of cars. Yet the figures would include ALL vehicles.

beemerphile1 wrote:

noe-place wrote:

beemerphile1 wrote:
Brake failure? doubt it
other mechanical failure? doubt it
operator error? possible
sixty-five YO driver suffered a medical problem before first barricade was hit? most likely

Isn't speculation a wonderful thing?

Speculation based on statistical evidence.

Only aproximately 7% of all accidents are due to mechanical failure so that makes brake failure unlikely.
Over 90% of all vehicle accidents are operator error.
Age 65 and over drivers have among the lowest rate of accidents and it is a good possibility the driver had a TIA or some other medical event prior to the collision.

Now that statement doesn't really make since!!
There are far more unfit and unhealthy 30 year old's now days than those of us that are 60+!!

Of all the possibilities and with all the speculation, I think the chance of being hurt or worse in a crash with any MH of any class is from flying debris… I doubt there is a statistic for that…

noe-place wrote:

beemerphile1 wrote:
Brake failure? doubt it
other mechanical failure? doubt it
operator error? possible
sixty-five YO driver suffered a medical problem before first barricade was hit? most likely

Isn't speculation a wonderful thing?

Speculation based on statistical evidence.

Only aproximately 7% of all accidents are due to mechanical failure so that makes brake failure unlikely.
Over 90% of all vehicle accidents are operator error.
Age 65 and over drivers have among the lowest rate of accidents and it is a good possibility the driver had a TIA or some other medical event prior to the collision.

Glad one poster can:
'doubt' brake failure, and operator 'possible'. :(

I exited on a ramp MH towing to quickly find out I did not have brakes.....Operator Error? "I" doubt it and personally know it from first hand experience.

I thankfully survived. Brake line failure the culprit.

The front brakes lines can LOOK perfectly fine from the OUTSIDE but they collapse on the INSIDE shutting off all brake fluid.

The mechanic that repaired them that day said he sees this happen on many MH's all the time.

If you buy a used MH and as a maintenance on new ones, REPLACE the front brake lines. Small price to pay for your life.

All these posts of MH's just careening off and crashing has me wondering just how many are due to the front brake line hoses collapsing?

No crash investigator is going to take off the 'perfectly looking' AND attached brake lines to see if the inside of the hose has collapsed which caused the accident.

Been there done that and really glad to still be alive to inform other RV'ers about it.

beemerphile1 wrote:
Brake failure? doubt it
other mechanical failure? doubt it
operator error? possible
sixty-five YO driver suffered a medical problem before first barricade was hit? most likely

Isn't speculation a wonderful thing?

Have you'all been living under a rock!:B

It's been proven over and over that seat belts saves lives. Just walk up and ask any EMT or fireman who sees it up front and personal every day on the job. They see countless horrific crashes where if the driver had not been ejected they would have lived. Today's cars are not your great grandpa's cars they are designed far better to crash in ways to protect the interior and in every aspect away from the occupants body.

Posted By: beemerphile1 on 08/12/14 03:58pm


That is the difference between a C class and most A class MH. The passenger compartment is still intact after an accident. Even though that Dodge is old, it was still built to higher standards than A class MHs have to meet.

X2 Had that driver had the seat belt on they 'would' have survived that crash. Not so if it had been an A.

I saw way too many "LOW" speed impact crashes with Class A's that if the huge windshield imploding didn't kill the occupants the lack of a front end in front of them to take the impact does. Known fact that someone simply backing into the front end of an A can shatter the windshield. It's the Achilles heal of Class A's.

Hence forth why I decided on a C. I want a full truck front end in front of my body and a windshiled that won't kill me if I am involved in an accident when I am traveling down the road. :C

ol Bombero-JC wrote:

MotorPro wrote:
The driver was rejected .....meaning no seat belt..............as soon as she hit the first bump she was likely not even in the seat to hit the brakes.......seat belts not only help in a crash they help prevent them!

.


The driver was rejected" ??..:?

Shouldn't let *rejects* behind the wheel..:S

~

So far we have had the usual "careened" instead of "careered" a "lay" instead of "lie" , and the "reject" instead of "eject"

All we need now is the latest thing, "shrunk" instead of "shrank" and the worst of all, "sunk" instead of "sank"

But spelling flames are not polite. :(