Another Likely RV Brake Failure Crash

[Dakzuki]

Unfortunately, fatal. LINK

Maintain your brakes, folks. Change that fluid if it's old and make sure you have lots of friction material.

[JJBIRISH]

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…

[beemerphile1]

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.

[rockhillmanor]

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.

[noe-place]

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?

[rockhillmanor]

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

[BFL13]

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. 😞

[TOMMY47]

If you want to be old at 65, you will be. I had a friend that thought 45 was old. You're whatever age you want to be. I've been around 28 for 25 years or more.
Certain cause of this death is lack of seatbelt. Not the crash, but the death.
A seatbelt in 1971 saved my life. Was very lucky my car had them back then.
I just don't get too sympathetic when folks get killed because they don't wear them when available. I know it's cold hearted but you/they made the choice.
Now, if her vehicle had no seatbelt due to its age, that's a different opinion.

[wilber1]

About 15 years ago I had a friend who was killed when ejected and had his SUV roll over him. Wasn't wearing a belt and the damage to his vehicle wasn't that bad. Good guy and all I could think was what a useless way to die.

[beemerphile1]

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.

[beemerphile1]

wa8yxm wrote:

...at least two FATAL accidents I sent troopers to that would not have happened if the at fault had his belt one.

In one we arrested the at fault.

On the other we buried him.

Two fatal accidents and they only buried one of them? Wouldn't the arrested one be stinking up the place shortly? :B

[fj12ryder]

rhagfo wrote:
X2

Sorry, but in my way of thinking 65 is not old! Older is like my mother who turned 90 this year and is still driving fine.

The seat belt would have likely saved her life, the body is gone, but the cab looks to be well intact.

48 years ago, I installed seat belts in my parents car for safety. I have never owned a car I didn't have seat belts in and used every time I got in the car.

Thinking 65 is not old just doesn't make it so. 🙂

[fj12ryder]

"I FULLY AGREE and in fact have at least two FATAL accidents I sent troopers to that would not have happened if the at fault had his belt one..."

Are you saying the accidents would not have happened if the person had their seat belt fastened?

[wa8yxm]

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!

I think you mean "Ejected" and speil clunk "Fixed" it for you.

But as for the last sentence...... I FULLY AGREE and in fact have at least two FATAL accidents I sent troopers to that would not have happened if the at fault had his belt one...

In one we arrested the at fault.

On the other we buried him.

[Bull_Rider]

I wonder if she was using a GPS that indicated "continue straight ahead". I saw the video on the news, sad story.

Our GPS will, on occasion, test us to see if we're paying attention. I think our GPS is possessed.

[mich800]

2oldman wrote:

mich800 wrote:
There are plenty more who cite the incidents where an occupant was ejected without serious injury and conclude it is safer to be thrown clear after looking at the wrecked vehicle. Ignoring the statistics you will more often than not end up under the vehicle.

Nothing is assured in a crash. You're just more likely to survive if you're belted in.

That was my point. I did not mean to imply a safety belt has a 100% survival rate.