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"??

[Deb_and_Ed_M]

2012Coleman wrote:


Post a picture of your rig OP - I'd like to see it.

For whatever reason, Tinypic has been difficult to work with lately, and I don't have another source for picture hosting. However, I've posted most of my build on the Ford Transit Camper Conversion forum
Transit Forum
and my thread is titled "The Old Lady and her Van" - yeah, I, Deb, am doing the building....LOL! (My van is named "Gracie Unicorn" because finding a cargo van with a deluxe cabin is like finding a unicorn; and by the Grace of God it will take us to the places we want to visit yet) But that is a fun forum, and my van is embarrassingly mundane compared to some of the incredible conversions featured on there! Each van reflects what its owners want to do: in Gracie's case, the center can be opened to haul my 12'6" kayak; or a load of plywood, etc. Stuff your average Class B can't do.

Wait - maybe I found the solution:

[2012Coleman]

The whole sticker argument is moot. My TT doesn't have this sticker, and I've never seen one. I like to camp at state parks. I've seen a lot of people in sites with conversion vans, some looking pretty sketchy. It doesn't bother me - I'm not uppity. If the OP can park at his condo without irking the over zealous people most likely staffing his HOA board, it's reasonable to assume that he won't have any issues - and on the rare occasion, he does encounter non admittance, another park that will admit him is most likely within driving distance - maybe look up 2 places to stop at, just to have a plan B.

Post a picture of your rig OP - I'd like to see it.

[Dutch_12078]

Getting back the the OP though, the bottom line is that campground owners can exclude pretty much any equipment they want to, including not permitting RV's at all, as some do. Fortunately, only a relative few exercise that right include entire classes of RV's...

[mike-s]

mowermech wrote:
Still waiting for the actual State or Federal statute that prohibits an RV park or campground from renting to a vehicle that does not have an RVIA sticker.
something like "Montana Code Annotated 61-xx-xxx", or "X United States Code xxxx" or "FMVSS xx-xxxx".

He can't. He can't even show where the seal has any value whatsoever. He cherry-picked a few states which do require stickers, but even there they don't require RVIA ones, and in 2 of the 3, the RVIA sticker is absolutely worthless for meeting the requirement, since the sticker comes from the state itself. He claims stickers are required in all states, but when challenged can't cite the relevant law in just two states he doesn't get to pick - Michigan and Indiana - he's unable to do so.

Completely unable to support his claims with facts, he's now trying to change his argument to something completely different in an obvious attempt to divert attention from his failure.

[mowermech]

Still waiting for the actual State or Federal statute that prohibits an RV park or campground from renting to a vehicle that does not have an RVIA sticker.
Something like "Montana Code Annotated 61-xx-xxx", or "X United States Code xxxx" or "FMVSS xx-xxxx".

This is the statement that was made, that created the question:

"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."

If it is, in fact, "required by law", there must be a reference to the law that makes such a requirement. We are simply asking for the chapter and verse of that law, from any jurisdiction.
IF there really is such a law...

[JaxDad]

mike-s wrote:
Give it up, you were wrong and now you're just embarrassing yourself.

With page after page of statutes, facts and citations you've done nothing but snipe back with baseless silly statements.

[mike-s]

Give it up, you were wrong and now you're just embarrassing yourself.

[JaxDad]

mike-s wrote:
That straw man is dead. The discussion is about the RVIA seal, not requirements for code compliance. Nothing you've cited has shown the RVIA seal is worth anything.

Ummm, no, actually, the OP was;

Deb and Ed M wrote:
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.

I read on another forum, that some RV Parks won't allow "converted vans".

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

They didn't mention RVIA at all, several other posters did, including myself, because on a percentage basis I doubt you'd need the fingers of one hand to count how many commercially produced RV's bear a certification seal that is anything BUT an RVIA seal.

But since that much discussed seal does nothing but refer to the legally required standards by NFPA and others it's kind of like saying 'you can't call that a "Kleenex" because it wasn't made by Kimberly-Clark'.

Do you ask for a "cellulose-based generic facial tissue" when you have a runny nose?

Now, one more time........


IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING BUT LOOK FOR A REASON TO ARGUE, STOP POSTING.

You've been shown chapter & verse (over & over & over again) where & why life safety standards are required, quit trying to nit-pick over why you still think you're right, that ship sank pages ago.

[mike-s]

That straw man is dead. The discussion is about the RVIA seal, not requirements for code compliance. Nothing you've cited has shown the RVIA seal is worth anything.

[JaxDad]

mike-s wrote:
Nebraska has a state seal, no mention of RVIA seals. In order to get the state seal, a manufacturer has to submit process and design documentation. Having an RVIA sticker means nothing - manufacturers still have to do the paperwork.

Washington is similar to Nebraska, and even requires a plant inspection. An RVIA seal means nothing.

California requires manufacturers to place a label stating code compliance, no mention of RVIA seals. Since RVIA expects manufacturers to self-certify, an RVIA seal is a waste of money, a manufacturer could simply print their own.

Oregon just says they must be built to codes. An RVIA seal means nothing.

It seems that you, unable to support your claim, are moving the goalposts.

Regarding the "50 states" thing. Instead of cherry-picking a few states, Point to Michigan and Indiana code which requires a sticker.

I know it's been since yesterday, but I would have hoped you'd read the below post since you replied to it.

JaxDad wrote:

mike-s wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
the RVIA standard is the 'catch all' certification that demonstrates that the RV meets those standards.

:R LOL. Manufacturers pay for a sticker, and pass the cost on with a profit. There's no real oversight, and absolutely nothing to "demonstrate" that they meet any standard.

That's an unfounded, and frankly, silly statement. As a legal oversight body the RVIA perform routine audits and spot inspections to ensure that the standards, both ANSI and NFPA, are being met.

Look at the RVIA seal, it merely certifies that NFPA 1192 or some other standard was met.



Nebraska - "Standards for all recreational vehicle types, except
park trailers, dealing with body and frame design, and construc-tion,
and with the installation of plumbing, heating, and electrical systems
in recreational vehicles approved and adopted by the National Fire
Protection Association and known as the NFPA 1192 STANDARD ON
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 2015 EDITION, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference.:"

Washington - "The State of Washington has adopted the current edition of NFPA 1192 Standard for Recreational Vehicles- and the current edition of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code Section 551 Recreational Vehicles."

California - "(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."

Oregon - "2017 Oregon Recreational Vehicle Safety and Construction Standards
?Effective Jan. 19, 2017

This code consists of the following:

2015 NFPA 1192, Standard on Recreational Vehicles?
2014 NFPA 70, National Electrical Code
2014 ANSI/RVIA Standard for Low Voltage Systems in Conversions and RVs"


If you're not even going to read what's being posted, PLEASE, a) do not continue to post ONLY for the purpose of arguing, and, b) do some research for yourself, it's all out there.


Finally, here's an article from a trade publication. Not the wording;

"These “product light” trailers would still be built to the NFPA 1192 standard and receive a seal, although it is unclear at this point if it would be the standard RVIA seal or a separate FEMA Emergency Living Unit (ELU) seal."

FEMA has the ability to designate the unit as an emergency unit, OR it has to provide people with units that minimum life safety standards.

[azrving]

Adam H wrote:
I do feel sorry for the O.P. who asked a simple question and got 4 pages of garbage about a worthless RVIA sticker. Hell, I'll make up an RIVA sticker in batches of 50 and sell for $10.00 a piece if I have enough interest. That would be about 1000% profit.... My sticker would mean about the same as an original, nothing but it could grant you access???

Adam

EDIT: Please take note, it would have to say RIVA or some other subtle difference for infringement purposes but I doubt anyone would notice though and CASH only, LOL

Being a big time criminal I removed one from an old TT and placed it on a TT that I built/rebuilt :0 I never could find the frame serial number!!!! Prison time for me.

[Adam_H]

I do feel sorry for the O.P. who asked a simple question and got 4 pages of garbage about a worthless RVIA sticker. Hell, I'll make up an RIVA sticker in batches of 50 and sell for $10.00 a piece if I have enough interest. That would be about 1000% profit.... My sticker would mean about the same as an original, nothing but it could grant you access???

Adam

EDIT: Please take note, it would have to say RIVA or some other subtle difference for infringement purposes but I doubt anyone would notice though and CASH only, LOL

[mike-s]

Nebraska has a state seal, no mention of RVIA seals. In order to get the state seal, a manufacturer has to submit process and design documentation. Having an RVIA sticker means nothing - manufacturers still have to do the paperwork.

Washington is similar to Nebraska, and even requires a plant inspection. An RVIA seal means nothing.

California requires manufacturers to place a label stating code compliance, no mention of RVIA seals. Since RVIA expects manufacturers to self-certify, an RVIA seal is a waste of money, a manufacturer could simply print their own.

Oregon just says they must be built to codes. An RVIA seal means nothing.

It seems that you, unable to support your claim, are moving the goalposts.

Regarding the "50 states" thing. Instead of cherry-picking a few states, Point to Michigan and Indiana code which requires a sticker.

[JaxDad]

mike-s wrote:

JaxDad wrote:

mike-s wrote:
Oh, and since it says you're in Canada, you can even cite national CA law.

Clock's ticking.

LOL. No, life safety is a State / Provincial matter, unlike vehicle safety, both in Canada (CMVSS) and the US (FMVSS).

But I'm glad you at least understand universally required life safety items.

Oh, so you were just making things up when you claimed "...they are nationwide the minimum performance standards."

And, you're unable to support any of your other made up claims with facts, which isn't surprising.

No, not in the slightest, LOL.

Just because all 50 States have adopted the same code standards it doesn't mean it is not a national standard does it?

There's this new thing, they call it "Google", by typing "State Code NFPA 1192"" I found a handful of examples in just a moment;

Nebraska Clicky

Washington Clicky

California Clicky

Oregon Clicky

Do you need the other 46 examples too?

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept, each State has responsibility for issuing building permits and enforcing the need to have one, yet the National Building, Electric and Plumbing Codes are the cited standards that must be met.

This best summed up by the following quote from the website of an engineering company that does those certifications;

" Currently in the United States, the requirement for a Compliance/Certification label on an RV is recognized in all fifty States and the District of Columbia. Additionally, there are certain States that maintain their own oversight programs and issue a required State-specific Certification Label.

The Certification Label is a statement from the manufacturer or oversight authority that the product is manufactured to the applicable codes and standards. Those standards are the NFPA 1192 2015 Edition, (Recreational Vehicles) the ANSI A119.5 2009 Edition, (Park Models/Tiny Homes), and the National electrical Code Sections 551 and 552 respectively. This certification label can be sourced from any one of several Certified Agencies such as PWA, or an Industry Association. The Industry Association label is administered to their members as a requirement of membership, however, there are many manufacturers that are not members of an Industry Association and as such, they source certification labels from one of the other recognized Certification Agencies."

It can be found here. Clicky

[mike-s]

JaxDad wrote:

mike-s wrote:
Oh, and since it says you're in Canada, you can even cite national CA law.

Clock's ticking.

LOL. No, life safety is a State / Provincial matter, unlike vehicle safety, both in Canada (CMVSS) and the US (FMVSS).

But I'm glad you at least understand universally required life safety items.

Oh, so you were just making things up when you claimed "...they are nationwide the minimum performance standards."

And, you're unable to support any of your other made up claims with facts, which isn't surprising.