U.S. Rpod Owners 2009-2010 models: PLEASE READ |
Post Reply | Page <1 1314151617 19> |
Author | |
TerryM
Admin Group - pHp Joined: 16 Nov 2009 Location: Saint Augustine Online Status: Offline Posts: 1950 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Topic: U.S. Rpod Owners 2009-2010 models: PLEASE READ Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 3:52am |
What we need is a set of wireless clearance lights. Then there wouldn't be the problem of running wires.
Terry |
|
RP-175 W/Lift Kit 2011 Ford F-150 4X4
Saint Augustine, FL: The first permanent European settlement in the USA: 1565 |
|
rpodcamper.com
Admin Group - pHp Joined: 26 Nov 2009 Location: Reading, Pa Online Status: Offline Posts: 3990 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 27 Sep 2011 at 12:39am |
Christmas card? They stopped sending me one right after they cashed my check. I have called them on the carpet more than once and right now checking into some regs here in pa. Last year i took my camper to a non trailer dealer for state inspection. They questioned the lights in march 2011 but passed the trailer as it had inspection on it before. I had put it out of my mind
Back then as i had planned on making a fender mod with lights on it. I also planned on putting a better backup light on the unit as most of the time when we camp im pulling in the dark. My comments are just about ready to post. |
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 6:01pm |
Thanks! However, everyone should realize that their "comments" become public and can be viewed by anyone wishing to do so - just like we can view FR petitions.
I doubt they are going to be very happy with us (ie. don't expect a Christmas card).
|
|
tdrace
Senior Member Joined: 18 Apr 2010 Location: Florida Online Status: Offline Posts: 133 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Sep 2011 at 8:02pm |
Well said!
|
|
tdrace's
2018 180 2010 FORD F150 V-8 equalizer e-2 hitch Sisters on the Fly #1569 |
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Sep 2011 at 5:56pm |
Well, it didn't cut/paste very well here, but I left a comment. Hope it helps. The recreational trailer, Rpod, is clearly in non-compliance with the NHTSA regulations, as the manufacturer, Forest River concedes. The NHTSA creates these requirements so that vehicles may be operated safely upon the public roadways. The NHTSA should require the manufacturer to bring the trailers into compliance for this reason and the following: 1. Forest River admits the units in question do not have the safety lighting required by the NHTSA. 2. To operate these units upon the public roadways is unsafe for the owners and the general motoring public. 3. To exempt this manufacturer would set and undesired precedent for all manufacturers of trailers. 4. To exempt this unit would place an unreasonable burden on the owners, Law Enforcement Officials, and the Courts systems; A. It would be unreasonable to require every Law Enforcement Official in the United States to have knowledge of one exempt vehicle of a particular make/model/year and month of manufacture. B. It would be unreasonable to require every Court of jurisdiction in the United States to have knowledge of the aforementioned exemption. C. It would be unreasonable to expect the owners to be subject to citation, impounding of the unit, and the legal defense of such, when found to be operating these units on the public roadways. 5. To exempt this unit would call into the question the owner’s ability to re-sell the trailer, knowing it to be in non-compliance and unsafe to operate. 6. The manufacturer is depriving the owners of the value of their purchase; as the units are in non-compliance and should not be operated upon the public roadway. 7. Forest River’s chief objection to bringing the units into compliance seems to be; “it would cost a lot of money”. This point is moot as the vehicles should have been manufactured in compliance with the NHSTA regulations from the beginning. 8. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the average consumer would rely on the manufacturer to provide a product that is in compliance with National regulations. As such, the owners of these units should not have been expected to have foreknowledge of the non-compliance, nor should they be expected to burden the cost of bringing the units into compliance. The NHTSA should reject the petition of Forest River in regards to these camping trailers, require Forest River to recall the units in question and require Forest River to bring the units into compliance with NHTSA regulations, at no cost to the owners. |
|
David and Danette
podders Helping podders - pHp Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1215 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Sep 2011 at 2:26pm |
comment added
|
|
2018 Vista Cruiser 19BFD (2018-
2012 Vibe 6503 (2014-2019) 2009 r-pod 171 (2009-2014) Middle Tn 2014 Ram 1500 Quad cab |
|
Goose
Senior Member Joined: 24 Sep 2010 Location: Arizona Online Status: Offline Posts: 672 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Sep 2011 at 12:13pm |
Thanks for the answere gmandual, that was one of three situations that I thought was possible. Totally understand about not being able to talk about the details at this time. I did have a typo as I said that our trailer is a 2011 but was built in August of 2010. Lets hope that FR does the right thing to resolve the problem so that no one else has to go through the same situation. Goose
|
|
Mother Goose's Caboose..2011 RP171..07 Grand Cherokee
|
|
kotasnana
Newbie Joined: 21 Mar 2010 Location: wise, va. Online Status: Offline Posts: 34 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Sep 2011 at 10:37am |
Coment added!
|
|
gmandual
Senior Member Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 246 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Sep 2011 at 12:34am |
I really can't get into to much detail, as am still dealing with some fallout from the situation so have been advised not to discuss many of the specifics. But the basics of it was that a traffic stop led to lighting/legality of trailer lights being brought into question which then led to situation where trailer's ability to have its license renewed was put into serious doubt. This led to me researching that part of vehicle safety code, contacting NHTSA for numerous clarifications, then finally filing a complaint with them. |
|
Goose
Senior Member Joined: 24 Sep 2010 Location: Arizona Online Status: Offline Posts: 672 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 11:19pm |
gmandual, I have been following this and do have a stake in the outcome seeing that we have a 2011 that was built in August of that year and does not have all of the lighting that is said to be required. The first question that I had right away was what prompted you to take this to the NHTSA as a safety issue, I know that in the beginning you stated that you had a legal issue with your state but did not explain any further. It would be helpful to know what the legal problem was or what lead up to it so that everyone else that has POD's like ours might be able to avoid a run in with the law until the lighting issue is resolved.
If you can help that would be great, you have already gone far beyond what the average person would have done. Goose
|
|
Mother Goose's Caboose..2011 RP171..07 Grand Cherokee
|
|
Post Reply | Page <1 1314151617 19> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |