Rich
Sourthern California
Full Member
Joined: 10/24/2000
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
 Offline
|
Amen to what Ron has said.....Right-on!!!
rich
96 Rolls Air
2002 Saturn toad
|
gotsmart
a bit too late though
Senior Member
Joined: 02/20/2012
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
lanerd wrote:You know, it seems more people here are more interested in the "legality" of having supplemental braking system.
Having a supplemental braking system installed on my rig was done with "safety" in mind way before I even thought of the legal aspect.
It stands to reason that during an emergency situation, a mh with a toad will stop quicker and in a shorter distance with a supplemental braking system than without.
It may only be a few feet, but that few feet may save a life, maybe even mine. To me, the choice is obvious. I don't understand why it's not to others.
Ron
I agree with you. I was correcting Rich by pointing out that California does not treat towed vehicles the same way as it does with trailers. I didn't want to muddy the conversation by adding "it's a really good idea to have supp. brakes on your toad" to the legal argument.
2005 Cruise America 28R (Four Winds 28R) on a 2004 Ford E450 SD 6.8L V10 4R100
2009 smart fortwo Passion with Roadmaster "Falcon 2" towbar & tail light kit - pictures
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
gotsmart wrote:I've seen that publication before...and it is fairly comprehensive, but it isn't a law that was passed by the California state legislature. A judge is not bound to it. I prefer citing the law directly - however obscure it may be.
There is a 2nd post immediately below the referenced post in the smartcarofamerica.com link that refers to section 26508 (Emergency stopping). Subsection (d) reads:
Quote:d) Towed vehicles shall be deemed to be in compliance with this section when:
(1) The towed vehicle is equipped with a no-bleed-back relay-emergency valve or equivalent device, so designed that the supply reservoir used to provide air for the brakes is safeguarded against backflow of air from the reservoir through the supply line.
(2) The brakes are applied automatically and promptly upon breakaway from the towing vehicle and maintain application for at least 15 minutes, and
(3) The combination of vehicles is capable of stopping within the distance and under the conditions specified in subdivisions (k) and (l).
Section 26508 does not appear to be referenced from within another section (like 26454 is), but it is referenced in the " One Point Count California Vehicle Code Violations" table of the point violations against one's drivers license. Sometimes all of the relevant information is scattered across several sections.
But the first line of 26508 refers to vehicles with air brakes, and is addressing the potential for "failure in the service brake air system". Since most toads are not equiped with air brakes, I'm not sure if this section of the vehicle code applies.
2003 Country Coach Intrigue, Cummins ISL 400
Toad: 2006 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited (LJ) toad, with just a few mods...
Other rig: 2005 Chevy Silverado 3500 Duramax Dually / Next Level 38CK Fifth-wheel Toy Hauler w/ quads, sand rail, etc...
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
lanerd wrote:You know, it seems more people here are more interested in the "legality" of having supplemental braking system.
Having a supplemental braking system installed on my rig was done with "safety" in mind way before I even thought of the legal aspect.
It stands to reason that during an emergency situation, a mh with a toad will stop quicker and in a shorter distance with a supplemental braking system than without.
It may only be a few feet, but that few feet may save a life, maybe even mine. To me, the choice is obvious. I don't understand why it's not to others.
Ron
It really is two different discussions - legality vs. safety.
Legality is (somewhat) more clearly defined, in that it is codified and less open to people's own opinions.
While we might agree that a relatively light weight (5000 lb) pickup truck towing a 4500 lb toad needs supplemental brakes to be "safe", we may not agree if it's a 35,000 lb DP towing a 3,000 lb toad. "Safe" is relative to individual's opinions, and each rig is different. It is easier to define what is and what is not legal.
We all have to decide what level of braking performance we're comfortable with (assuming we're legal and meet the codified performance standards). If a supplemental braking system saves a few feet, what else might save a few more feet? A lighter RV? Upgraded brakes? A lower speed limit? The arguments are endless, and I'm not looking to argue - only to say that if you're "legal" then "safe" becomes a more abstract concept.
Except that "legal" varies from state to state...
|
gotsmart
a bit too late though
Senior Member
Joined: 02/20/2012
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
MPond wrote:But the first line of 26508 refers to vehicles with air brakes, and is addressing the potential for "failure in the service brake air system". Since most toads are not equiped with air brakes, I'm not sure if this section of the vehicle code applies.
You are correct. I did not catch the air brake portion of it. I just poured over Division 12 of the CA vehicle code. The website is easily searchable - one just needs the correct key words. I have yet to find an explicit reference to 'towed vehicle' or 'towed motor vehicle', and 'breakaway'. Given California's dire financial health, it would not surprise me if a judge allows one without air brakes on the tow vehicle and toad to be cited in violation of 26508 - using the argument that non-air brake systems are implied or should have been included in section 26508. I'm glad I do very little driving in California.
|
|
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
gotsmart wrote:... Given California's dire financial health, it would not surprise me if a judge allows one without air brakes on the tow vehicle and toad to be cited in violation of 26508 - using the argument that non-air brake systems are implied or should have been included in section 26508. I'm glad I do very little driving in California.
Very true... But I live here, so it's harder to avoid driving in California. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/biggrin.gif "biggrin")
|
lanerd
Home in Ridgecrest CA for the winter.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/03/2003
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
MPond wrote:lanerd wrote:You know, it seems more people here are more interested in the "legality" of having supplemental braking system.
Having a supplemental braking system installed on my rig was done with "safety" in mind way before I even thought of the legal aspect.
It stands to reason that during an emergency situation, a mh with a toad will stop quicker and in a shorter distance with a supplemental braking system than without.
It may only be a few feet, but that few feet may save a life, maybe even mine. To me, the choice is obvious. I don't understand why it's not to others.
Ron
It really is two different discussions - legality vs. safety.
Legality is (somewhat) more clearly defined, in that it is codified and less open to people's own opinions.
While we might agree that a relatively light weight (5000 lb) pickup truck towing a 4500 lb toad needs supplemental brakes to be "safe", we may not agree if it's a 35,000 lb DP towing a 3,000 lb toad. "Safe" is relative to individual's opinions, and each rig is different. It is easier to define what is and what is not legal.
We all have to decide what level of braking performance we're comfortable with (assuming we're legal and meet the codified performance standards). If a supplemental braking system saves a few feet, what else might save a few more feet? A lighter RV? Upgraded brakes? A lower speed limit? The arguments are endless, and I'm not looking to argue - only to say that if you're "legal" then "safe" becomes a more abstract concept.
Except that "legal" varies from state to state...
Are you trying to tell me that a 35000 lb DP with a 3000 lb toad will NOT stop any quicker or in a shorter distance with or without supplemental braking on the toad?
Who cares if it's legal or not...braking, regardless of what it's on has always been and always will be a safety concern. You can't stop...you're in trouble. Think of yours and others welfare here, not your pocket book.
Ron
Ron & Sandie
2013 Tiffin Phaeton 42LH Cummins ISL 400hp
Toad: 2011 GMC Terrain SLT2
Tow Bar: Sterling AT
Toad Brakes: Unified by U.S. Gear
TPMS: Pressure Pro
Member of: GS, FMCA, Allegro
RETIRED!! How sweet it is....
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
lanerd wrote:Are you trying to tell me that a 35000 lb DP with a 3000 lb toad will NOT stop any quicker or in a shorter distance with or without supplemental braking on the toad?
Who cares if it's legal or not...braking, regardless of what it's on has always been and always will be a safety concern. You can't stop...you're in trouble. Think of yours and others welfare here, not your pocket book.
Ron
No, I'm not trying to tell you that a 35,000 lb DP would not stop quicker with supplemental brakes, though I'm not convinced it makes a significant difference.
What I'm saying is that it's relative, and a toad will have a less significant effect on a heavier RV. That is to say, the same toad will affect the braking of a 18,000 lb class C much more than a 35,000 lb DP. The larger, heavier RV has brakes designed for a much larger load, and the effect of the toad is relative to that weight and braking capacity.
Consider this example: RV chassis, weights, and braking systems vary significantly. I've had several, and my current DP stops far faster than my last gas class A did. The DP & toad without supplemental brakes stops faster than the Gas class A & toad with supplemental brakes. If both have break-away systems, then which one would be considered safer?
The one without supplemental brakes stops quicker even though it doesn’t have brakes on the toad. But nobody is claiming that the gas coach is unsafe, since it has supplemental brakes on the toad. I would argue that the rig that stops faster is "safer", whether or not it has supplemental brakes.
The pocket book is not the concern. It's that what is "safe" is open to different interpretations. If my newer rig stops more quickly without supplemental brakes than my old rig did with them, and my old rig was considered safe, then I don't agree with the arguement that people make that every toad should have supplemental brakes. There are many other things I could do to save a few feet of braking distnace.
To be clear, I'm not objecting to Supplemental Brakes; I'm objecting to the blanket statement that they're required in every case. RVs vary widely, and there is no one-size-fits-all answer.
I also think that's why a number of states have adopted performance standards for braking - it's easier to define and codify a set of performance standards than it is to come up with a blanket rule that fits all the different types of RVs, trucks, trailers, etc...
|
paulcardoza
Southeastern Massachusetts
Senior Member
Joined: 01/15/2010
View Profile
Offline
|
Well stated Mpond! When we moved up to our Executive from the W22 Pace Arrow, towing our Jeep became nearly invisible while driving. If I weren't so hell-bent about having the braking system in place just for the highly unlikely event that hey toad breaks away from the rig, I would have ditched the brake-buddy long ago. We're ~~45,000lbs without the toad.........
Paul & Sandra
Plymouth, MA
2014 Heartland Cyclone 4100 King
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
paulcardoza wrote:Well stated Mpond! When we moved up to our Executive from the W22 Pace Arrow, towing our Jeep became nearly invisible while driving. If I weren't so hell-bent about having the braking system in place just for the highly unlikely event that hey toad breaks away from the rig, I would have ditched the brake-buddy long ago. We're ~~45,000lbs without the toad.........
Thanks.
My biggest concern with supplemental brakes is having them fail and ending up dragging the Jeep without knowing it, ultimately ruining the brakes.
We once had our enclosed cargo trailer repaired and the mechanic mis-wired the trailer plug so that the brakes were wired hot all the time. We towed about 40 miles without any noticable drag on the DP. We stopped for fuel and could smell the burned brakes. They were completely ruined and had to be replaced.
That same trailer has great brakes - when towing it behind my truck you can definitely feel them helping. But behind the DP we didn't even notice they were full on.
|
|
|
|
