Are Class A dangerous?

[topdownman]

Coming across Montana on Highway 2 this morning just outside of Williston came across a C class laid over on its side just off the shoulder. No idea what happened.

[gemini5362]

Originally Posted by PushedAround

Not to be contrary here, but there are plenty of exceptions to your statement. In my 42 years of driving (I guess that you are my senior) and 20 years of towing/RVing I have had numerous close calls with unthinking or uncaring drivers diving into my generous braking area, changing what would have been a gradual slowdown into a panic stop. I haven't hit anyone yet, but it would not surprise me if plenty of other careful drivers have.

Technically you could be correct if someone cut in front of you and had to hit their brakes if you did not have time to stop then you would rear end them although I would call that improper passing. You should not read my statement in a vacuum though. I believe the intent of the statement was to indicate an accident that was caused by someone driving too slow and being rear ended. The argument could be made that if you were driving too slow and a car came around a curve too fast then did not have time to stop before they hit you. There is an argument which could be made that you were driving too slow in those circumstances. I would stand by my original statement that if you came around a corner and could not stop your vehicle in time then you were driving too fast for the conditions.

I am very aware of the hazards of driving slow those hazards are dependent on what you are driving also. I have been riding a motorcycle for 35 years I could not count the number of times when I have sped up to get away from cars behind me that felt like I was driving too slow and did not leave enough room to stop in case of an emergency. I think maybe I am getting away from my point here. Just because you are not driving a Ferrari does not mean you have to only take the blue road ( I believe that was the term that was used.) If your vehicle will run the minimum speed limit you have a right to be on the interstate. I

[darstar]

Originally Posted by gemini5362

Technically you could be correct if someone cut in front of you and had to hit their brakes if you did not have time to stop then you would rear end them although I would call that improper passing. You should not read my statement in a vacuum though. I believe the intent of the statement was to indicate an accident that was caused by someone driving too slow and being rear ended. The argument could be made that if you were driving too slow and a car came around a curve too fast then did not have time to stop before they hit you. There is an argument which could be made that you were driving too slow in those circumstances. I would stand by my original statement that if you came around a corner and could not stop your vehicle in time then you were driving too fast for the conditions.

I am very aware of the hazards of driving slow those hazards are dependent on what you are driving also. I have been riding a motorcycle for 35 years I could not count the number of times when I have sped up to get away from cars behind me that felt like I was driving too slow and did not leave enough room to stop in case of an emergency. I think maybe I am getting away from my point here. Just because you are not driving a Ferrari does not mean you have to only take the blue road ( I believe that was the term that was used.) If your vehicle will run the minimum speed limit you have a right to be on the interstate. I

While in Alaska coming north into Anchorage the old car ahead of me got pulled over by an Alaska State Trooper, for going too slow ! Granted there were 30 old cars, most of us can go 60-70 no problem, and we were spaced out in between. I guess it was the fact that "our leader" was slower than the rest of us., and I was, at the time looking for an opening to pass him !.....only He got a ticket.

There are several reasons to take the Blue Roads and not the Interstate that are other than just going too slow. One, and it has been described on this thread already, is cross winds and large trucks that cause air turbulence. Light weight class As have a real problem with this, I know I had one 20 years ago. Sometimes all I could do was hit the brake and slow down, untill the danger had passed.....The difference is real, my current Monaco Sig. weights in at 37,000. Not only can you walk around inside like the coach was standing still, air turbulence not a problem. Cross winds, yes when they are strong, very strong. Thats when I wish I had my Howard PS system working. It all seems to be there, but no activation by any of the buttons and levers.( I know this off topic , but , certainly could be a safety factor and stability during a front steer tire blow out. .

[flaggship1]

Anything can happen at any time in any kind of vehicle. Nature of the beast. If you take the stats posted earlier in the thread at face value - we are pretty safe in our Class As. If you double the revised stats - still safer than cars per million miles driven. Plenty of examples of things gone wrong - but like broken hips from slipping in the shower - stuff happens. I still shower - still drive a Class A and feel safe.

I hope the OP gets comfortable with the safety factor. Would hate to see anyone forego the joy these things bring because of horror stories - presumably being told by people that still drive a Class A. Recount accidents all you like - but I haven't heard anyone say they are selling their rig because they don't feel safe - either in their rig or because of other rigs being unsafe.

Everyone be careful out there. It's a dangerous world.

OP - go get behind the wheel and test drive a few. You'll know if it's right for you and I suspect it will be. In no time you find yourself longing to get behind the wheel - if for no other purpose than to drive a true magnificent machine.

[JFXG]

Originally Posted by SocioSam

...One article recommended against Class A calling them dangerous because 1) they are top heavy and tend to rollover, 2) the have no front end protection because motor is under it, 3) no air bags, 4) harder to drive especially when windy...

NO! Class As are not dangerous, certain makes and models may be. Biggest variable is the driver. You quoted "...one article...". Where? Who wrote it? Why? As with all information, you have to cynically consider the source. A guy whose wife's family builds and sells Class C motorhomes would love to convince you that Class As are unsafe. You get the point.

I haven't read 9 pages of posts, so this may already have been said, but the first thing you should do is subscribe to the RV Consumer Group www.rv.org For a nominal fee they provide piles of information, including ratings of specific makes and models, both new and used, that include handling, quality, and fitness for a particular purpose, whether it be camping three times annually or fulltime living.

It was the best few bucks I spent when we were shopping. Pay particular attention to how wheelbase length affects handling.

[Barbaraok]

John,

Sorry, by the last thing one should do is send money to any outfit where the people DON'T RV!

Barb

[Spinner]

119 posts?! I guess it's settled. Class A's are what they are...



GREAT FUN!

[JFXG]

Originally Posted by Barbaraok

John,
Sorry, by the last thing one should do is send money to any outfit where the people DON'T RV!
Barb

Like..... Walmart, JCPenney, your doctor, grocery stores, Amazon, Home Depot, your church......??

Sorry, Barb..... I like your posts, but the simple fact is that if you need to make an important decision, you need information to structure that decision. If you don't have all the information in the world stored on your personal computer, then you have to acquire the pertinent information somewhere else, often by buying it. The guy that runs RVCG clearly has a bit of an ax to grind with some RV manufacturers, but his biases all lean him toward conservative decision making (which is usually safer), and both his and other's mechanical and design analyses regarding wheelbase and chassis design make sense from an engineering point of view. I don't know if he RVs or not, but it really doesn't matter. If he has the info I need, and its not easily accessible elsewhere, I'll gladly pay him for it.

[phnguyk]

Originally Posted by darstar

Class A is a configuration, not a specific model or make. I would say there are some ClassAs out here that are dangerous , ones that are gas powered and have lighter chassis for the size of the box that it sits on....that's just for starters.Disregard what you have been told, it's false info. To generalize.

To the OP, what this person has typed is as much a LIE as what you have asked. This person in my opinion is being very ignorant and ultimately hurting the industry. In no way is a "gas" motorhome any more dangerous than an expensive diesel pusher. That is what weight limits are for, to follow, you can easily overload a diesel just as you could a gas RV. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but flat out lies should not be told. I travel with my wife and 2 children ages five and seven, they have both been traveling since 9-12 months old. In no way are they in any more danger in our GAS class A than in an expensive diesel, or driving in our SUV.

[phnguyk]

Originally Posted by Barbaraok

John,

Sorry, by the last thing one should do is send money to any outfit where the people DON'T RV!

Barb

X infinity, you will not get any useful info from them.

[phnguyk]

Originally Posted by JFXG

Like..... Walmart, JCPenney, your doctor, grocery stores, Amazon, Home Depot, your church......??

Sorry, Barb..... I like your posts, but the simple fact is that if you need to make an important decision, you need information to structure that decision. If you don't have all the information in the world stored on your personal computer, then you have to acquire the pertinent information somewhere else, often by buying it. The guy that runs RVCG clearly has a bit of an ax to grind with some RV manufacturers, but his biases all lean him toward conservative decision making (which is usually safer), and both his and other's mechanical and design analyses regarding wheelbase and chassis design make sense from an engineering point of view. I don't know if he RVs or not, but it really doesn't matter. If he has the info I need, and its not easily accessible elsewhere, I'll gladly pay him for it.

Walmart, jcpenny, DR's they are experts at what they do. This person behind RVCG is not. Kind of like CW, with that name you would think they were experts on all things Camping. But boy oh boy they're anything but.

[PushedAround]

Originally Posted by gemini5362

Technically you could be correct if someone cut in front of you and had to hit their brakes if you did not have time to stop then you would rear end them although I would call that improper passing. You should not read my statement in a vacuum though. I believe the intent of the statement was to indicate an accident that was caused by someone driving too slow and being rear ended. The argument could be made that if you were driving too slow and a car came around a curve too fast then did not have time to stop before they hit you. There is an argument which could be made that you were driving too slow in those circumstances. I would stand by my original statement that if you came around a corner and could not stop your vehicle in time then you were driving too fast for the conditions.

I agree with you about driving too fast for conditions and not being able to stop. I also agree with you that MOST rear end collisions are the fault of the car in the back. I guess that I just keyed off of the "ALL" statement.

[JFXG]

Originally Posted by phnguyk

X infinity, you will not get any useful info from them.

phnguyk, that's just simply untrue. Clearly you've got some problem with their evals. I strongly disagree.

I used RVCG ratings extensively for several months while shopping for a used coach for fulltiming. Every single piece of analytical data I used from them checked out as accurate, from chassis to interior trim. Every one. They may or may not be RVers, but they know how to research and present data, and in any decision making that's the important thing.

[phnguyk]

Originally Posted by JFXG

phnguyk, that's just simply untrue. Clearly you've got some problem with their evals. I strongly disagree.

I used RVCG ratings extensively for several months while shopping for a used coach for fulltiming. Every single piece of analytical data I used from them checked out as accurate, from chassis to interior trim. Every one. They may or may not be RVers, but they know how to research and present data, and in any decision making that's the important thing.

analytical - of a proposition that is necessarily true independent of fact or experience; "`all spinsters are unmarried' is an analytic proposition"




That's my problem, no real world experience, "particle board"=bad, well not in all situations, "158 wheelbase"=bad, fatigue, poor handling. Did they drive it, NO, it's all information you can find yourself without paying someone, better yet go try it. It would be like paying a mechanic to look over a coach, instead he just looks at data and says "oh no not this one" or "yes this one is perfect". Some people read their ratings and stop looking because they take it as fact without any REAL WORLD experience and can't afford the more expensive coaches. Our coach is supposedly horrible according to them, 40,000 miles and it's not the tiring, horrible handling, death trap they ASSUME it is.