Do we need another brake system ??

wa8yxm wrote:
There are two sets of laws.. ONE requires a brakign system on any towed over xxxx pounds depending on your state, And MANY states require such brakes.. more on that in a paragraph or two.

The other law is Civil law.. Basically what this says is that if you rear end me, and you do not have a supplemental braking system on your towed, Being as I know a bit about physics and said braking systems.. I'm going to claim that your were Reckless and endangered myself and every other driver on the road and ask for like half a million dollars. Odds are good I'll get it too.

Now. The promised paragraph.. Many of the "Do you need____" web sites looked for language in the state laws that require brakes for a Car in Tow, and if, as in the case of Michigan, there is no specific "Car in tow" rule,, Said "Not required"..

But they FAILED to look up the definition of trailer (Any vehicle towed in such a manner that the weight of the vehicle does NOT rest on the towing vehicle in Michigan) This fits a car, towed 4-down, EXACTLY,, In fact it fits better than a genuine trailer.. (Which is covered elsewhere in the code so no excemptions for you folks)... Now many of the web pages have corrected Michigan, That may have been my fault indirectly, but I keep wondering how many other states they got wrong.

You may know physics but you dont know squat about law. MY STATE has NEITHER "law" as you state it.

TRAILER in my state is defined as any vehicle being towed that was never designed not intended to be powered by ITSELF ( Normally cars ARE powered by themselves)

Yes it's a good idea. But the doom and gloom about always being at fault and sued if you don't is all conjecture. Devil's advocate, I have yet to see any suit where the defendant's lack of a supplimental brake system in their MH cost them a case. You may very well be in your legal and physical limits and a lot would depend on the accident, if there was even an investigation and if it was even considered. Maybe having one prevents an accident from ever occurring. Hard to prove that. But again, yes it's a good idea. Given your weights and laws it might even be required. Err on the side of caution. But the sky is falling scenarios people always put on here about getting half a million for being rear ended is a lot conjecture. Perhaps I am not looking in the right spot, if someone can cite a case where it was won or lost based on this. But yes, you should consider one.

There are many sites you can google or pull up in Good Sam or FMCA that give the towing laws for all states. Almost all say 3000 lbs or greater require a braking system. I never tow without mine hooked up it takes a few minutes to set up my Brake buddy but peace of mind is worth it.

I find it interesting that Uhaul tow dollies do not have supplimental brakes. Their limits are 3500-3900#. Now seeing as Uhaul operates in all states, what do they know that everyone else doesn't about the laws with respect to towing a car? I see a lot of conflicting information on sites posted here about the supposed laws of each state. I find it interesting a lot of those sites sell supplimental braking systems. Again, I think it's a good idea - don't get me wrong, but a lot of information posted on here about car towing laws is questionable. Call your local MVA. Or don't and err on the side of caution. Nothing ever wrong with that.

Effy wrote:
Yes it's a good idea. But the doom and gloom about always being at fault and sued if you don't is all conjecture. Devil's advocate, I have yet to see any suit where the defendant's lack of a supplimental brake system in their MH cost them a case. one.

this type of rationale always amuses me. when a civil case drags on in court for a year or two and the jury finally awards a large sum to the damaged party, what do you expect, a headline in the Washington Compost saying "multi million award due to no braking system"? all I can assure you is that if somebody towing a toad rear ends me that is one of the first issues I will raise with the investigating officer. certainly contributory negligence could be argued.
bumpy

Bumpyroad wrote:

Effy wrote:
Yes it's a good idea. But the doom and gloom about always being at fault and sued if you don't is all conjecture. Devil's advocate, I have yet to see any suit where the defendant's lack of a supplimental brake system in their MH cost them a case. one.

this type of rationale always amuses me. when a civil case drags on in court for a year or two and the jury finally awards a large sum to the damaged party, what do you expect, a headline in the Washington Compost saying "multi million award due to no braking system"? all I can assure you is that if somebody towing a toad rear ends me that is one of the first issues I will raise with the investigating officer. certainly contributory negligence could be argued.
bumpy

Depends on the law and the state. It always amuses me that people tout how civil cases can be won but nothing to cite so. Again, I never said it was a bad idea, but scare tactics should be supplimented with facts.

Bill,

What does the chassis manufacturer of your motorhome require?

Personally, I think auxiliary braking is a good idea whether "the law" requires it or not. But I know in our case, Workhorse required it for anything towed over 1,500 lbs. (might have been 1,000 lbs...I forgot). I know Ford had a similar requirement for the 2004 era chassis. Not sure about now.

~Rick

Effy wrote:
I find it interesting that Uhaul tow dollies do not have supplimental brakes. Their limits are 3500-3900#. Now seeing as Uhaul operates in all states, what do they know that everyone else doesn't about the laws with respect to towing a car? I see a lot of conflicting information on sites posted here about the supposed laws of each state. I find it interesting a lot of those sites sell supplimental braking systems. Again, I think it's a good idea - don't get me wrong, but a lot of information posted on here about car towing laws is questionable. Call your local MVA. Or don't and err on the side of caution. Nothing ever wrong with that.

Most of the U haul Tow Dollies I have seen have BRAKES. They are Surge brakes with a Hydraulic cylinder built in the ball tongue. When the force of stopping pushes against the ball assbly the hydraulic brakes activate. Doug

I towed a 1997 Saturn SL2 for many years behind a 23' C and a 31' C w/o brakes. I never believed it to be unsafe. When I switched to a Dodge Caravan I went with a tow dolly with disc brakes. If I ever went back to a light weight car I doubt I would have a SBS. I have never been in a situation while towing where I had to panic stop. But that's me, I drive slow and am very attentive.

If you have a question about a law issue, it helps to go to the source. Here is the reply that I got from the Florida Highway Patrol when I asked the question:

A vehicle towed behind a motor home would be exempt from the braking requirements in Florida statute 316.261 as a drive away, tow away operation. Please contact me if you have any other questions.

Lt. Jeff Frost
Florida Highway Patrol
Public Affairs Officer
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement
2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS 45
850-617-2279
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
www.flhsmv.gov/fhp
Jefffrost@flhsmv.gov

Now, the important part......your home State issued driver's license and license tag on your RV makes you legal in EVERY state that you go. The towing requirements, however, are determined by each state you travel in. In other words, I DO NOT need supplemental braking for my toad in Florida, BUT, it MAY be required in some other state that I travel in.
I do have a brake system on my toad for the simple reason that it allows me to stop quicker in an emergency situation. An emergency is just that, an emergency, and a few feet just may make the difference between life or death.
Do you need another brake system??? YES
Is it legally required??? MAYBE in SOME states