Supplemental Brake... Necessity or Preference

lanerd wrote:
You are sill not getting it and are totally missing the point.

I don't care if it is a rig 30 years old or one right off the show room floor. It's going to stop quicker and shorter if the toad it's pulling has a supplement brake system and that shorter distance can make a huge difference. Period.

I'm not over simplifying this at all. It is simple logic.

And Paul, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. Who said ANYTHING about outlawing??? Sheesh!

Ron

It's not that I don't get your point, I do - I understand exactly what you are trying to say. It's just that your point is abstract, and without substance unless you look at the individual rig and decide whether or not that rig needs supplemental brakes in order to be able to travel down the highway in a manner that doesn't impose unneccesary risk on everyone else.

To use your exact words: "It's going to stop quicker and shorter if the toad it's pulling has a supplement brake system." It's also going to shop quicker and shorter if the owner upgrades the brakes on the RV to a newer, higher performance setup. It's also going to stop quicker and shorter if we limit toads to vehicles under 2500 lbs. It's also going to stop quicker and shorter if we reduce the speed limit for RV's pulling toads to 45 MPH. Each of these statements is technically correct and logically true. That doesn't make them reasonable or rational, even though each one would reduce stopping distance by inches or feet, and potentially avoid an accident. Each one would be summarily dismissed as unnecessary or unreasonable.

Your "simple logic" is flawed in that, while it is technically correct, it doesn't justify anything and is without merit unless you look at the individual rig. Yes - you are oversimplifying it.