Manslaughter charges for improper towing equipment.

" (NOTE on a semi all wheels brake)"

And again, not necessarily:
MCA 61-9-304
"Brakes required on all wheels -- exceptions. Every vehicle must be equipped with brakes acting on all wheels except:
(1) trailers, semitrailers, pole trailers of a gross weight not exceeding 3,000 pounds, provided that:
(a) the total weight on and including the wheels of the trailer or trailers may not exceed 40% of the gross weight of the towing vehicle when connected to the trailer or trailers; and
(b) the combination of vehicles consisting of the towing vehicle and its total towed load is capable of complying with the performance requirements of 61-9-312;
(2) any vehicle being towed in driveaway or towaway operations, provided the combination of vehicles is capable of complying with the performance requirements of 61-9-312;
(3) trucks and truck tractors having three or more axles need not have brakes on the front wheels, if the vehicle was manufactured before July 25, 1980. However, the trucks and truck tractors must be capable of complying with the performance requirements of 61-9-312.
(4) special mobile equipment;
(5) the wheel of a sidecar attached to a motorcycle or to a motor-driven cycle, or the front wheel of a motor-driven cycle need not be equipped with brakes. However, a quadricycle, motorcycle, or motor-driven cycle must be capable of complying with the performance requirements of 61-9-312.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 139, L. 1965; R.C.M. 1947, 32-21-143.1(c); amd. Sec. 42, Ch. 516, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 276, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 216, Ch. 542, L. 2005.

See paragraph (3).
By the way, paragraph (2) seems to address a towed motor vehicle.
Of course, this is all predicated on complying with MCA 61-9-312!

wa8yxm wrote:

mowermech wrote:
(1) 25 feet for passenger motor vehicles, except buses and pioneer vehicles;
(2) 40 feet for buses, trucks, and tractor trucks;
(3) 45 feet for motor vehicles registered or qualified to be registered as pioneer vehicles under 61-3-411(2)(a) when equipped with two-wheel brakes or 25 feet when equipped with four-wheel brakes;
(4) 40 feet for all combinations of vehicles; and
(5) 30 feet for motorcycles, quadricycles, and motor-driven cycles.

One of the more interesting discussions I have had on this issue was with a Driver's training instructor who was a retired police officer, RVer and an accident investigator, His training in these matters went way beyond mine or the average cop on the road's.

I ask him: When you are using skid marks to estimate the speed of a vehicle.. Does it make a difference if it's a car or a semi truck (NOTE on a semi all wheels brake) and his answer was "NO"

Yet in the law, it makes a difference.

CLEARLY if the formulas used by the police, I might add around the WORLD, say the skid marks are the same for all vehicles with all-wheel braking, no matter what the size...

And the government feels the need to give me more room to stop my House than my Car.... I got to have brakes on the towed to make it stop faster.

Note. I have a number of friends who unlike the Driver's Training Insstructor (AEON RV safe Driving course) are STILL active accident investigators and LEO's.... I've had this discussion about skid marks with a number of them.

How is speed determined in the absence of skid marks?

mowermech wrote:
(1) 25 feet for passenger motor vehicles, except buses and pioneer vehicles;
(2) 40 feet for buses, trucks, and tractor trucks;
(3) 45 feet for motor vehicles registered or qualified to be registered as pioneer vehicles under 61-3-411(2)(a) when equipped with two-wheel brakes or 25 feet when equipped with four-wheel brakes;
(4) 40 feet for all combinations of vehicles; and
(5) 30 feet for motorcycles, quadricycles, and motor-driven cycles.

One of the more interesting discussions I have had on this issue was with a Driver's training instructor who was a retired police officer, RVer and an accident investigator, His training in these matters went way beyond mine or the average cop on the road's.

I ask him: When you are using skid marks to estimate the speed of a vehicle.. Does it make a difference if it's a car or a semi truck (NOTE on a semi all wheels brake) and his answer was "NO"

Yet in the law, it makes a difference.

CLEARLY if the formulas used by the police, I might add around the WORLD, say the skid marks are the same for all vehicles with all-wheel braking, no matter what the size...

And the government feels the need to give me more room to stop my House than my Car.... I got to have brakes on the towed to make it stop faster.

Note. I have a number of friends who unlike the Driver's Training Insstructor (AEON RV safe Driving course) are STILL active accident investigators and LEO's.... I've had this discussion about skid marks with a number of them.

A breakaway system can not be installed on anything that does not have brakes.
I have a light utility trailer on which brakes are not installed, and not required by law. It is quite literally impossible to install a breakaway system on that trailer without installing an axle equipped with brakes. It just can't be done!
Safety chains or cables, however, are required by law on ALL ball hitch trailers, including gooseneck hitches. Such chains or cables must be of sufficient strength to hold the rated gross weight of the trailer.

wa8yxm wrote:

Dave H M wrote:
What has this got to do with RVing. ?

I scanned the article and it seemed to be centered about cargo not being secured properly.

I answered that question: There are many folks towing 3,000, 4,000 or even heavier cars without aux brake systems.. A car in tow is a trailer, it trails behind the tow vehicle and thus is a trailer. Imagine loosing a hitch pin (i did) and not having an aux brake system (I also had that). and what could happen when the car breaks free?

In the incident being described here, there were no safety chains (or they were not used properly), and no break-away system. Thats the real issue here, that caused the results to be so tragic in this case. Had either of these (especially safety chains) been used properly, this incident would probably have had a far different (and much less tragic) outcome.

However, John, you're talking about MH owners towing vehicles without using supplemental brakes. Thats a whole different story, unless they aren't using safety cables or a break-away system, either. Given that most tow bars come with the safety cables, I'm betting even folks that don't use a supplemental brake system on their toad, ARE definitely using safety chains at the very least.

Really, this incident doesn't prove very much of anything one way or the other, on the many towing issues that get 'debated' so much here (towing overweight, towing without supplemental brakes, etc). I doubt anyone would disagree that safety chains and a break-away system should have been used here. Either of which (especially chains) probably would have prevented this from happening.

Towing overweight, and without trailer brakes, I don't believe played much of a part in this accident. Note I said 'trailer brakes', not 'break-away system'. Two different things, one of which (break-away) is IMO much more important. Not using safety chains and a break-away system OTOH, did.

It's confusing alright:

The word "break" relates to broke/broken(when something fails or comes apart)

The word "brake" is the equipment on a vehicle to slow it down, or stop it.

The term "breakaway brake system" relates to the safety equipment that comes into play when/if the hitch fails or jumps off the ball, whenever you're towing a trailer or a vehicle.

I had to look it up,....a long time ago.

So, what's satisfying to me in this case is that while the hitch is talked about as being overloaded (its design load limit exceeded), it did NOT fail. It looks more like a simple case of operator error due to negligence or ignorance or both.

wa8yxm wrote:

mowermech wrote:
Montana Code Annotated 61-1-101 (82) (a)and (b):
""Trailer" means a vehicle, with or without motive power, other than a pole trailer, designed for carrying property and for being drawn by a motor vehicle and constructed so that no part of its weight rests upon the towing vehicle.
(b) The term does not include a mobile home or a manufactured home, as defined in 15-1-101.

A passenger car or pickup is not designed to carry property (it is designed to carry PEOPLE), and is not designed to be towed by a motor vehicle (it has to be modified for that purpose). It is not a trailer in Montana.
Neither is a pole trailer or a mobile home or a manufactured home!

That is almost word for word the Michigan code as I recall. However a passenger car *IS* designed to carry property, how do you think the groceries get home from the store, and the modifications to make it towable constitute a RE-DESIGN. and after that it is DESIGNED to be towed in the manner specified.

So it is a trailer.. And it needs brakes.

Well, maybe...
MCA 61-9-312 states:
"Performance ability of brakes. On a dry, hard, approximately level stretch of highway free from loose material, a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles, upon application of the service brake, must be capable of stopping at a speed of 20 miles an hour within the following distances:
(1) 25 feet for passenger motor vehicles, except buses and pioneer vehicles;
(2) 40 feet for buses, trucks, and tractor trucks;
(3) 45 feet for motor vehicles registered or qualified to be registered as pioneer vehicles under 61-3-411(2)(a) when equipped with two-wheel brakes or 25 feet when equipped with four-wheel brakes;
(4) 40 feet for all combinations of vehicles; and
(5) 30 feet for motorcycles, quadricycles, and motor-driven cycles.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 139, L. 1965; R.C.M. 1947, 32-21-143.2; amd. Sec. 44, Ch. 516, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 25, Ch. 431, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 178, Ch. 574, L. 2001."

A motorhome towing a vehicle certainly meets the criteria for a "combination of vehicles". Note paragraph (4). If that "combination of vehicles" can stop within 40 feet when meeting the criteria in the basic law, AUXILIARY BRAKES ON THE TOWED VEHICLE ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED!

EDIT: I forgot to note that OF COURSE the Michigan and Montana laws are nearly "word for word". The Montana law is nearly word for word what the FMVSS has to say. Apparently the Michigan law parrots the FMVSS, also. As, apparently, do most other state Braking Performance Laws!

mowermech wrote:
Montana Code Annotated 61-1-101 (82) (a)and (b):
""Trailer" means a vehicle, with or without motive power, other than a pole trailer, designed for carrying property and for being drawn by a motor vehicle and constructed so that no part of its weight rests upon the towing vehicle.
(b) The term does not include a mobile home or a manufactured home, as defined in 15-1-101.

A passenger car or pickup is not designed to carry property (it is designed to carry PEOPLE), and is not designed to be towed by a motor vehicle (it has to be modified for that purpose). It is not a trailer in Montana.
Neither is a pole trailer or a mobile home or a manufactured home!

That is almost word for word the Michigan code as I recall. However a passenger car *IS* designed to carry property, how do you think the groceries get home from the store, and the modifications to make it towable constitute a RE-DESIGN. and after that it is DESIGNED to be towed in the manner specified.

So it is a trailer.. And it needs brakes.

et2 wrote:
http://m.ktvu.com/news/news/local/chp-recommends-charges-fatal-pizza-oven-crash/nhgkX/

As he should be charged. I have zero sympathy of those who think it won't happen to them. If you pull over weight or don't have the proper equipment this is what damage you can do

X2

mowermech wrote:
Montana Code Annotated 61-1-101 (82) (a)and (b):
""Trailer" means a vehicle, with or without motive power, other than a pole trailer, designed for carrying property and for being drawn by a motor vehicle and constructed so that no part of its weight rests upon the towing vehicle.
(b) The term does not include a mobile home or a manufactured home, as defined in 15-1-101.

A passenger car or pickup is not designed to carry property (it is designed to carry PEOPLE), and is not designed to be towed by a motor vehicle (it has to be modified for that purpose). It is not a trailer in Montana.
Neither is a pole trailer or a mobile home or a manufactured home!

Interesting... It strikes me that no conventional hitch drawn trailer meets that definition. I have never seen a conventional trailer that didn't have some of its weight resting on the hitch (tongue weight), failing the "...constructed so that no part of its weight rests upon the towing vehicle." test. On the other hand, a toad actually comes closer to meeting that definition by virtue of placing no weight directly on the hitch, and being designed to carry both people AND property (pickup bed, trunk, rear cargo area).