Do we really need a braking system in our toads?

[UFO Pilot]

I believe the various States only honor driver's license requirements in your home State. They don't appear to "honor" triple towing laws or total length restrictions from you home State..

[ChallengerRN]

I'm heading north to. UP of Michigan here. Safe travels.

Russell

[Thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by tedgard01

Well, it appears that;

1) Five states; Alaska, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin, have a verified brake requirement based on the towed vehicle weight.

2) Most states have a general performance requirement based on stopping distance from 20 mph. Those apply to all vehicles or to combinations of vehicles.

3) Three states; Hawaii, North Dakota and District of Columbia, have statutes that are not available online and therefore are not tabulated.

4) Most states have a reciprocating agreement with other states, meaning that they allow a person that is visiting their state, but resides in another state, to be determined found liable only under the law of the state that they reside in. Therefore, it is assumed that if you do not live in a state that already has a brake requirement, then you are probably not going to be found in violation of the law, even if the state you are in has a brake requirement. And besides, who wants to visit Alaska, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin anyway.....


Ted

You can visit them just can't live there without aux brakes. Appears to be the same info from the link I provided courtesy of isa. If your info is from another source would you share the link for my file, please?

[tedgard01]

Originally Posted by UFO Pilot

I believe the various States only honor driver's license requirements in your home State. They don't appear to "honor" triple towing laws or total length restrictions from you home State..

That may be correct, but I don't think I will be sited for having a breaking system, if the state that I am in does not have a requirement.... Since I have one, I will assume I am good... LOL


Ted

[tedgard01]

Originally Posted by Thunderfoot

You can visit them just can't live there without aux brakes. Appears to be the same info from the link I provided. If your info is from another source would you share the link for my file, please?

Nope. Just copied it from there... Except for my addition of #4...

Ted

[Thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by tedgard01

Nope. Just copied it from there... Except for my addition of #4...


Ted

Roger that, thanks. I'd still like to see/have in my possession an "official" listing that is recognized anywhere by any LEO department...

[Thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by ChallengerRN

I'm heading north to. UP of Michigan here. Safe travels.

Russell

Be safe out there. I'd like to see that part of the country

[tedgard01]

Originally Posted by Thunderfoot

Roger that, thanks. I'd still like to see/have in my possession an "official" listing that is recognized anywhere by any LEO department...

Like IMDSailor so wisely stated;

Originally Posted by IMDSailor

.... This is and sadly it seems will always be a circular debate. ....

Reminds me of the song; "The wheels on the bus go round and round"..... With a new verse of ; Until you have an auxiliary breaking system... LOL


Ted

[Thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by tedgard01

Like IMDSailor so wisely stated;


Reminds me of the song; "The wheels on the bus go round and round"..... With a new verse of ; Until you have an auxiliary breaking system... LOL


Ted

I think you're misunderstanding my point? I'm not debating the aux brake issue per se, rather what the law is and how or where to find definitive proof... one way or the other. I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate the info on the link I forwarded is, nor the others on the dear ol' net. Maybe one of the posters that cited the legal, negligence, and insurance issues as gospel can provide said link or info?

[tedgard01]

Originally Posted by Thunderfoot

I think you're misunderstanding my point? I'm not debating the aux brake issue per se, rather what the law is and how or where to find definitive proof... one way or the other. I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate the info on the link I forwarded is, nor the others on the dear ol' net. Maybe one of the posters that cited the legal, negligence, and insurance issues as gospel can provide said link or info?

Ok.... Well, I think you may have misunderstood my point too.... It was totally meant to be a funny.... Haha


Ted

[Thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by tedgard01

Ok.... Well, I think you may have misunderstood my point too.... It was totally meant to be a funny.... Haha


Ted

All good here. It's frustrating that the statutes can be so ambiguous and obtuse that the folks that want to obey them, and/or discuss them can't figure out what they mean and how they apply to RV's! Add in a good dose of (seemingly) wrong information and
Kinda like the licensing, overlength, overweight, and triple towing issues that should be clearly stated. If an RV's exempt just say so! But then that'd be logical and we know how that goes...

[Ramzfan]

Originally Posted by tedgard01

I believed that the OP was asking a serious question that he wanted to discuss. I think that various folks provided their valid concerns on both sides of the issue. These forums are a good place to get advice and both pros and cons on a given subject.

I gave my honest advice on reasons that it is important for having a breaking system on a toad, the OP and others gave their reasoning why they did not think a breaking system was needed.

Debate is a good thing.


Ted

A very sensible answer...! Thank you.

[Ramzfan]

Well, this has been a really interesting discussion/debate of the merits of having an auxilliary braking system. What it showed me was who really wanted to discuss the issue and who wanted to throw FEAR and LAWLESSNESS into the pot. There were some very good points made by some and some rediculous claims made by others. All in all though, it has been very enlightening. For those who believe that I was just "stirring the pot", I want you to know that I just purchased a Roadmaster "Invisibrake" for my toad. The swaying argument for my purchase was that without one, I could very possibly be held liable for driving an illegal vehicle in one state or another, if I were to get into an accident. Once again, thank you to all who contributed.

[Mich F]

After reading your initial and subsequent posts, I am honestly shocked to hear that you bought a braking system for your toad. With your combination of MH and toad you probably didn't really need a braking system, unlike many others on here, who are pulling toads and should have a braking system. As for the legal aspects, I've heard so many stories of how you could be held liable in an accident, if you didn't have brakes, yet I've never heard where anyone can come up with any cases of a person being charged with something, or not being covered by insurance when they were involved in an accident.
Who knows, maybe you will see/feel a difference with your braking system installed. Best of luck with the system.

[NeilV]

Even if your motor home is heavy enough to not need a supplemental brake to stop you will have a runaway if the toad every comes loose and then be personally liable for all the damages. If someone dies it really is negligent homicide.

You really need not only a supplemental brake but one that has a breakaway safety feature on it. Something to consider when shopping for a bargain on a supplemental brake system since if there is no breakaway protection then its really no bargain.

I believe it was Judge Hand set up the precedent for this 60 years ago and basically if reasonable precautions to prevent losses are less expensive that the potential damages that they prevent then you can be held responsible for the consequences if you do not put those precautions into effect.

[IMDSailor]

Well knock me over with a feather. I did not see that coming.
Congratulations, You've made the right choice.
I hope you will accept my apologies for my testyness.


Sent from my iPhone using iRV2 - RV Forum

[TwelveVolt]

Originally Posted by NeilV

Even if your motor home is heavy enough to not need a supplemental brake to stop you will have a runaway if the toad every comes loose and then be personally liable for all the damages. If someone dies it really is negligent homicide.

Here we go with the doom and gloom scenarios again. The common theme is that the doom will befall the owner without the aux brake. You know, "Probability". Some seem to be using the word as if it means "Certainty". The problem is that statistical probability works both ways.

A MH without aux brakes is going down the road. The toad breaks away. The other drivers on the road immediately become aware of this erratic "driver" among them moving in the same direction and take evasive action. The toad takes out a power pole and ends up in the ditch. A total write-off. Did the owner ALLOW this to happen by not having an aux brake?

The next day an identical MH is going down the same road, driven by the proud owner of an aux brake. The toad breaks loose at the same pothole because of the same fault in the hitch welding. Drivers are surprised by the abrupt stopping of this vehicle with no brake lights, including the following semi, who cannot avoid the toad without taking out a couple of cars in the next lane. Seven vehicle pile-up with fatalities. Did the owner CAUSE this outcome by having an aux brake?

My point is simply a caution on assuming that probability is always in favor of your desired outcome. The fact is that "Probability" implies "Uncertainty".

[Mich F]

Originally Posted by TwelveVolt

Here we go with the doom and gloom scenarios again. The common theme is that the doom will befall the owner without the aux brake. You know, "Probability". Some seem to be using the word as if it means "Certainty". The problem is that statistical probability works both ways.

A MH without aux brakes is going down the road. The toad breaks away. The other drivers on the road immediately become aware of this erratic "driver" among them moving in the same direction and take evasive action. The toad takes out a power pole and ends up in the ditch. A total write-off. Did the owner ALLOW this to happen by not having an aux brake?

The next day an identical MH is going down the same road, driven by the proud owner of an aux brake. The toad breaks loose at the same pothole because of the same fault in the hitch welding. Drivers are surprised by the abrupt stopping of this vehicle with no brake lights, including the following semi, who cannot avoid the toad without taking out a couple of cars in the next lane. Seven vehicle pile-up with fatalities. Did the owner CAUSE this outcome by having an aux brake?

My point is simply a caution on assuming that probability is always in favor of your desired outcome. The fact is that "Probability" implies "Uncertainty".

A couple of things with your scenarios. What happens in the first case if that "erratic driver" crosses into oncoming traffic? Do you give those people the same chance of avoiding the runaway toad?
In your second scenario, there is not going to be an abrupt stop. When the toad brakes away, the brakes should be activated and the toad will take who knows how far/long to come to a stop.

[Ramzfan]

Originally Posted by TwelveVolt

Here we go with the doom and gloom scenarios again. The common theme is that the doom will befall the owner without the aux brake. You know, "Probability". Some seem to be using the word as if it means "Certainty". The problem is that statistical probability works both ways.

TwelveVolt, I agree completely. That's what I've been trying to say all along here...Anyone can create a scenerio of doom & gloom. I have seen vehicles along the highway that lost a wheel while driving. What do you do in those cases? Add an auxiliary NET to the body of the coach to protect others from a 100 lb. rolling missle that MIGHT come loose,,,? To be real honest, I have driven over a million miles in these United States and have NEVER seen an accident caused by a tow-hitch breaking loose from the tow vehicle.

[TwelveVolt]

Originally Posted by Mich F

A couple of things with your scenarios. What happens in the first case if that "erratic driver" crosses into oncoming traffic? Do you give those people the same chance of avoiding the runaway toad?
In your second scenario, there is not going to be an abrupt stop. When the toad brakes away, the brakes should be activated and the toad will take who knows how far/long to come to a stop.

My example was intended only to demonstrate what is possible under the umbrella of statistical probability.

But we are here to discuss, so lets discuss. The purpose of the aux brake is to take the weight of the toad off the MH in an emergency braking situation. By implication this means fast and hard. Why is your aux brake being applied in a leisurely fashion on a break-away event? Is this giving the toad enough distance to cross the median?

Drive your toad down the road. Shift to Neutral; no, not Reverse, just Neutral; never mind, just take your foot off the accelerator. Now let go of the wheel. The vehicle is now coasting and slowing down. How long it takes to come to a stop depends on the vehicle. If there is any crown to the road at all, the car will turn to the right shoulder.

The only problem with this test scenario is that in a real situation, unless both attach points on the toad broke away simultaneously, there is probably something dragging on the ground in front of the toad. The spare parts dragging on the ground will likely induce a turn in one direction or the other. However, they may also have a braking effect on the toad (design engineers, listen up).