Conversion Vans not allowed at some RV Parks?

[Deb_and_Ed_M]

I've been happily turning a new Transit T250, medium-high roof van into a "travel van" to get us back and forth from FL, and to do some sightseeing and weekend camping. The dinette turns into a bed with ample storage underneath the benches; the kitchen sink disappears, and we have a portapotty so we don't get booted from our condo complex for having an "RV". From the outside, it just looks like an upscale cargo van with extra windows.

I read on another forum, that some RV Parks won't allow "converted vans". As we travel, we plan to use RV parks - I enjoy the quiet and safety that comes with being amongst RVers. I intend to reserve space for a Class B, since that's more or less what we have. After all - ALL Class Bs are converted vans.....LOL!

Are we going to pull into a park, only to have someone turn us away because we have a "conversion"??

[jplante4]

I guess that's enough law school for a while...

CLOSED

[mowermech]

No, and they do not turn away cars where the catalytic converter has been removed by the owner, or vehicles with dual exhaust and straight pipes, or windows tinted too dark, or expired license plates, or missing body parts, or....
Yeah, I know, "BUT, that's different!"

[mich800]

mowermech wrote:
So, if a campground rents a space to a home-built RV that does not have an RVIA sticker, (unless they have it inspected by a Code Enforcement Officer), they are guilty of "aiding and abetting" the crime of not complying with the code(s)? Is that what you are saying or implying?
Once again, I find a twisted application of the law (IMO), and they would NOT want me on the jury to try that case!
I accept that you think you are right, but I still want to read a law that specifically forbids an RV park or campground from renting to any unit that does not have an RVIA sticker! "Accessory after the fact" is too much of a stretch even for my fertile imagination!

And yet gas stations do not turn away diesel vehicles or inspect before pumping for missing DPF's, cats, egr, ...

[mowermech]

So, if a campground rents a space to a home-built RV that does not have an RVIA sticker, (unless they have it inspected by a Code Enforcement Officer), they are guilty of "aiding and abetting" the crime of not complying with the code(s)? Is that what you are saying or implying?
Once again, I find a twisted application of the law (IMO), and they would NOT want me on the jury to try that case!
I accept that you think you are right, but I still want to read a law that specifically forbids an RV park or campground from renting to any unit that does not have an RVIA sticker! "Accessory after the fact" is too much of a stretch even for my fertile imagination!

[JaxDad]

mowermech wrote:
"(3) Compliance with those standards as required by this section may be enforced by any law enforcement authority having appropriate jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 18020.5, which makes it a crime to violate any provision of this part."

OK, but where does it say that it is illegal to rent a space to an RV that does not have the sticker?
THAT, y'see, is the question! Nothing else, just that.

That's a simple one, it took about 4 seconds on Google.

California Penal Code Section 31 provides in relevant part: “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime … whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission…are principals in any crime so committed.”

So, those persons who are commonly referred to as 'accessories' or 'accomplices' as well as those who actually commit the crime can be prosecuted, tried and punished as criminals themselves in California.


Now please, ENOUGH, I'm getting weary of spoon-feeding people too lazy to do their own research or too stubborn to just read what's posted and accept the quoted citations as facts.

I'm sorry if you don't like the truth, but just like death and taxes, you're not going to change anything by being a disbeliever.

[mowermech]

"(3) Compliance with those standards as required by this section may be enforced by any law enforcement authority having appropriate jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 18020.5, which makes it a crime to violate any provision of this part."

OK, but where does it say that it is illegal to rent a space to an RV that does not have the sticker?
THAT, y'see, is the question! Nothing else, just that.

[JaxDad]

mowermech wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
I suspect that most people posting here are unaware that in every jurisdictions I've ever looked at, the RVIA or CSA Z-240 endorsement is required by law in order to stay in a campground in an RV.

In this litigious society we live in I doubt ANY park owner will knowingly 'look the other way' on a legally required safety issue. Sure you might get past a few parks management but the registration form always asks for the make of the RV so 'none' might stick out.

Unless those codes are incorporated into State law (yes, many states, including CA, have done that, but I don't know of any that state that an RV park or campground can not rent a space to a unit that doesn't have the sticker), they are unenforceable by regular law enforcement personnel.

I presume you missed part of my earlier post;

"(3) Compliance with those standards as required by this section may be enforced by any law enforcement authority having appropriate jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 18020.5, which makes it a crime to violate any provision of this part."


"..... any law enforcement authority..."

"... which makes it a crime....."

[mowermech]

JaxDad wrote:
I suspect that most people posting here are unaware that in every jurisdictions I've ever looked at, the RVIA or CSA Z-240 endorsement is required by law in order to stay in a campground in an RV.

In this litigious society we live in I doubt ANY park owner will knowingly 'look the other way' on a legally required safety issue. Sure you might get past a few parks management but the registration form always asks for the make of the RV so 'none' might stick out.

Again, the post in question. It was stated that: "in every jurisdictions I've ever looked at, the RVIA or CSA Z-240 endorsement is required by law in order to stay in a campground in an RV."
Please, enough of the regulations (NFPA, NEC, etc.) Unless those codes are incorporated into State law (yes, many states, including CA, have done that, but I don't know of any that state that an RV park or campground can not rent a space to a unit that doesn't have the sticker), they are unenforceable by regular law enforcement personnel.
"Legally speaking, knowingly renting a campsite with electrical service to someone in an illegal RV and a fire resulting would likely mean the person renting was at least partly culpable. " So, that means that it may be ill-advised to rent to such a unit, but that does not mean it is illegal.
Give us the applicable state or provincial law that requires a campground owner to check for an RVIA or CSA Z-240 sticker before renting a space, or admit that there actually is no such law, and, while it may be ill-advised, it is not illegal to rent to a non-RVIA on non-CSA Z-240 unit.

[JaxDad]

Jarlaxle wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
I suspect that most people posting here are unaware that in every jurisdictions I've ever looked at, the RVIA or CSA Z-240 endorsement is required by law in order to stay in a campground in an RV.

In this litigious society we live in I doubt ANY park owner will knowingly 'look the other way' on a legally required safety issue. Sure you might get past a few parks management but the registration form always asks for the make of the RV so 'none' might stick out.

Can you actually cite the law in question? From ANY state?

I've already cited several, it just seems nobody wants to read what's posted, they need to be spoon fed, but just as an example, bear in mind we're talking about National Standards which each State has adopted.

(SIC)

California Health and Safety Code, division 13, Part 2, Chapter 4 -Standards sets out;

"18027.3. (a) The Legislature finds and declares as follows:

(1) The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have adopted standards for the design and safety of recreational vehicles,......

(2) The ANSI A119.2 and A119.5 standards and the NFPA 1192 standards are designed to protect the health and safety of persons using recreational vehicles and park trailers.

(3) Compliance with those standards as required by this section may be enforced by any law enforcement authority having appropriate jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 18020.5, which makes it a crime to violate any provision of this part.

(h) It is unlawful for any person to do either of the following:

(1) Remove, or cause to be removed, a label, an insignia, or an insignia of approval affixed pursuant to this section.

(2) Alter or convert, or cause to be altered or converted, any recreational vehicle in a manner that is inconsistent with ANSI Standard No. A119.2 or A119.5 or the NFPA 1192 Standard on Recreational Vehicles when the recreational vehicle is used, occupied, sold, or offered for sale within this state."


So there you are, it is a crime in California to use or occupy an RV which does not meet NFPA 1192 standards, and bear a seal which substantiates its compliance and just as with any other illegal action, condoning, aiding, assisting or abetting such illegal activity is an illegal act unto itself.

Not nearly the same level of course, but legally no different than serving alcohol to an already drunk person, or giving a firearm to someone you know intends to use it to commit a crime.

Legally speaking, knowingly renting a campsite with electrical service to someone in an illegal RV and a fire resulting would likely mean the person renting was at least partly culpable.


Pages back this was mentioned, but it was apparently overlooked by most, an RV going down the road is a vehicle, possibly a motor vehicle (motorhome), but as soon as you park it off a public roadway, it become a 'habitable structure' with plumbing, gas and electrical systems that mean it MUST meet 'life safety standards' no different than a sticks & bricks does.

[Deb_and_Ed_M]

Naio - I like DrewE's names! Especially "campervan"; although I'll have to use Van Conversion since mine's apparent use *isn't* camping at first glance.

[DrewE]

Somehow I always thought that a "Conversion Van" was the redneck limo sort of vehicle (which, incidentally, can be superb vehicles for road trips). A "Van Conversion", on the other hand, sounds to me more like a van made into a camper.

On the other side of the pond they call them "campervans," I believe, but that's far to obvious and straightforward to catch on here.

[Naio]

I've heard 'homebrew', which I kinda like, but it probably sounds bad on the phone to an RV park :).

That's why I fell into my habit of listing items inside. But maybe there is a word and I don't know it.

One park asked me, 'You mean like a Sportsmobile?' so I tried saying that at the next park, but they were like, 'A what?' That was IN California!

I know I have even seen a park sign up form that had a category, 'sport utility RV' or something like that, but I can't remember where that was. I liked having a box I could check with CONFIDENCE.

[Deb_and_Ed_M]

Not regional, you are right. I had an older E150 conversion van where the back bench seat folded jacknife-style into a bed, but it was horrible. I guess we need an official name for DIY cargo-to-camper vans?

[Naio]

Something to consider, too, is that our rigs are not what is meant by a conversion van...unless it is a regional term 🙂

When van shopping out west, I found that conversion vans were not set up for camping at all, but instead were passenger vans with upgraded seats, cupholders, mood lighting, backseat tvs etc.

Kind of like wannabe limousines, I guess. People wanted an arm and a leg for their last-century decor, too!