RV Crash

[WeatherTodd]

Originally Posted by Olive

I would not be without a Safe-T-Plus. I had a right front blowout on my last coach, a 34'Winnebago Adventurer, at highway speed. I heard that tire blow but honestly didn't feel it and safely drove my coach into the median to a stop. The only damage was what was caused by the tire blowing. The first thing I did after I purchased my current coach was have a Safe-T-Plus installed.

If you search the forum you will find others with similar experience.

I dont have expectations of any RV being car like in safety or crash worthy. I did purchase the most valuable tool one could use in ANY vehicle...advanced driver training.
Best $1,000 I ever spent.

[PushedAround]

Originally Posted by WeatherTodd

I dont have expectations of any RV being car like in safety or crash worthy. I did purchase the most valuable tool one could use in ANY vehicle...advanced driver training.
Best $1,000 I ever spent.

The safest accident is the one that you avoided.

[pmgia]

I wonder if Tyron s would have help keep the rubber on the wheel and helped with control?

[DMTTRANSPORT]

NO such thing as an accident, stuff happens because someone screwed up.....

[ShapeShifter]

Originally Posted by DMTTRANSPORT

NO such thing as an accident, stuff happens because someone screwed up.....

It sounds like you are equating accident with blamelessness. Accident implies a lack of intent, but it doesn't mean that nobody is to blame. Someone can most definitely be responsible, and it is still an accident if he didn't intend for it to happen.

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

accident
noun ac·ci·dent

1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>

2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident>
c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation

3
: a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

Only one definition (2c) mentions fault or misconduct, but it does not say that the cause of the accident has no blame, only that the injured party did not cause the accident to happen.

Yes, in every accident, someone is to blame, but that doesn't mean that it was intentional. If the responsible person didn't intend for it to happen, it was an accident, even if someone is clearly to blame.

It reminds me of the results of many aircraft accidents: very often "pilot error" is listed, even if the direct cause was weather or lack of proper maintenance, or a similar situation: it's was the pilot's decision to fly into that weather, or the pilot's decision to fly an improperly maintained aircraft.

I'm guessing that's much the same point that you are trying to make: it was someone's lack of tire inspection, maintenance, and/or proper inflation that was the likely cause, and while it may be negligent, it was probably not intentional, and therefore could still be an accident.

Yes, it's getting into petty semantics, by both you and I.

[DMTTRANSPORT]

Originally Posted by ShapeShifter

It sounds like you are equating accident with blamelessness. Accident implies a lack of intent, but it doesn't mean that nobody is to blame. Someone can most definitely be responsible, and it is still an accident if he didn't intend for it to happen.


Only one definition (2c) mentions fault or misconduct, but it does not say that the cause of the accident has no blame, only that the injured party did not cause the accident to happen.

Yes, in every accident, someone is to blame, but that doesn't mean that it was intentional. If the responsible person didn't intend for it to happen, it was an accident, even if someone is clearly to blame.

It reminds me of the results of many aircraft accidents: very often "pilot error" is listed, even if the direct cause was weather or lack of proper maintenance, or a similar situation: it's was the pilot's decision to fly into that weather, or the pilot's decision to fly an improperly maintained aircraft.

I'm guessing that's much the same point that you are trying to make: it was someone's lack of tire inspection, maintenance, and/or proper inflation that was the likely cause, and while it may be negligent, it was probably not intentional, and therefore could still be an accident.

Yes, it's getting into petty semantics, by both you and I.

We are not in court, but the proper wording on the street would be Collision....

[ShapeShifter]

Originally Posted by DMTTRANSPORT

We are not in court, but the proper wording on the street would be Collision....

Not in court? Agreed. So why are you talking like a lawyer? What's wrong with calling it an accident?

"Proper" is of course debatable. Lots of people also use "crash" including many in the profession that used to call themselves "Accident Investigators."

"Accident" doesn't appear to be politically correct these days, even though it is a perfectly acceptable term. It is only being avoided because some people add a connotation of "blameless" to it, which is simply not the meaning of the word.

[Dan Wong]

Originally Posted by PushedAround

Easy to say, much harder to do. .... it is learned and practiced. I say this with 40 years of racing experience. Take a car control clinic; it will open your eyes and maybe save your life.

Not trying to hi-jack this thread. I can see value in this, for a typical car driver such as I, where can I sign up for such class? Is it expansive?

[harleyjt]

Originally Posted by DMTTRANSPORT

Exactly why we will stick with our 05 Newmar, with a STEEL frame NOT WOODEN....

I could have sworn that Newmar uses Aluminum framing. I know my 05 KSCA does as there is a decal on it stating so.

I thought that was across the board at Newmar. Interior walls around bath are wood framed etc.
jt

[PushedAround]

Originally Posted by Dan Wong

Not trying to hi-jack this thread. I can see value in this, for a typical car driver such as I, where can I sign up for such class? Is it expansive?

Many racetracks now offer some type of advanced driver training course where you spend a day or 2 in their cars learning and practicing car control, often for around what your insurance deductible would run. The enlightenment that you get and the techniques that you will learn are directly applicable to driving a motorhome. PM me if you need any more information.

[Moxy]

Originally Posted by ShapeShifter

It sounds like you are equating accident with blamelessness. Accident implies a lack of intent, but it doesn't mean that nobody is to blame. Someone can most definitely be responsible, and it is still an accident if he didn't intend for it to happen.


Only one definition (2c) mentions fault or misconduct, but it does not say that the cause of the accident has no blame, only that the injured party did not cause the accident to happen.

Yes, in every accident, someone is to blame, but that doesn't mean that it was intentional. If the responsible person didn't intend for it to happen, it was an accident, even if someone is clearly to blame.

It reminds me of the results of many aircraft accidents: very often "pilot error" is listed, even if the direct cause was weather or lack of proper maintenance, or a similar situation: it's was the pilot's decision to fly into that weather, or the pilot's decision to fly an improperly maintained aircraft.

I'm guessing that's much the same point that you are trying to make: it was someone's lack of tire inspection, maintenance, and/or proper inflation that was the likely cause, and while it may be negligent, it was probably not intentional, and therefore could still be an accident.

Yes, it's getting into petty semantics, by both you and I.

legally speaking there is no such thing as an accident, that should settle it guys, mens rea with respect to these types of matters has no bearing on guilt or innocence, the only thing to be proven is that the act took place actus reus, due diligence is a defense under most offenses.

got to get to court,

Moxy

[Betr2Trvl]

Originally Posted by Dan Wong

Not trying to hi-jack this thread. I can see value in this, for a typical car driver such as I, where can I sign up for such class? Is it expansive?

Originally Posted by PushedAround

Many racetracks now offer some type of advanced driver training course where you spend a day or 2 in their cars learning and practicing car control, often for around what your insurance deductible would run. The enlightenment that you get and the techniques that you will learn are directly applicable to driving a motorhome. PM me if you need any more information.

PushedAround, great input. I had been thinking the same thing reading the near hysteria around this incident.

Dan, it appears you are in Phoenix, so I would suggest you check out the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving located there. For others, another good place to look into is Skip Barber Racing School, which has schools at many race tracks around the country. Just a couple of places to start.....

While they have many racing programs, they also offer intro programs that teach basic car control skills. These programs can be expensive, but the knowledge gained is priceless and yes, the knowledge is completely transferable to driving an RV. I can not overstate how valuable my knowledge gained through various car control, racing schools, and high performance driving programs over the last 15 years has been in learning to drive our MH, as well as making me a significantly better / safer driver in general.

For any of you with teenagers in your families / grandkids, I would also suggest you check out the Tire Rack Street Survival programs run in many cities across the country. It is inexpensive, and can provide some real world knowledge of basic car handling that is never taught in drivers Ed. http://streetsurvival.org
.

[FR3]

This thread reminds me of the controversy some years ago regarding tire blowouts on SUVs and resulting loss of control. The contention was that there was something inherent in the SUV design that was causing loss of control. I saw a video of a test that was conducted where they purposely blew a tire and filmed the result of driver actions. The net result was that it was driver reaction that caused the rollovers and that that relatively minimal driver input was required to maintain control of the vehicle. Granted an SUV is not the same as a motorhome, but if you have a steer axle tire blow out, stomp on the brakes and jerk the wheel to counter the perceived change in direction, you will probably lose control of the vehicle.

[JumboJet2]

Just an update to the occupants - DW is in rehab. DH just got his first solid meal yesterday and should be in rehab this week.

Both have had some wonderful family, friends, and strangers assist them.