Supplemental Brake... Necessity or Preference
We seem to have a good number of discussions on the issue of the need for supplemental brakes... Unfortunately many of the discussions are not very productive in terms of giving those who have an open...
Forum Discussion
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...
