Dinghy brakes or not?

[Jayco-noslide]

I'm hesitant about this topic because I will probably get lectured but I'm wondering how many of you flat tow with no supplemental brakes? My situation is a 30 ft motor home towing a 2700 lb. Chevy Sonic. I think I'm legal if under 3000 lbs. To me it seems to stop as well or better than my former rig of a 25 ft. 5th wheel towed by a half-ton truck, with the trailer having brakes. I know that every inch less that 1 can stop is important but, let's face it, stopping distance is going to be longer with any RV set-up brakes or not. I'm brakeless mainly I guess because of cost but also inconvenience of another thing to mess with. Just wondering if I am a group of 1 or many?

[Tom_Barb]

WE go to Canada often, never have been checked. I do have brakes on my Jeep. but you must look close to see them.

[Toot_Mc]

I am a great believer in brakes for my TOWD. With the brakes on TOWD I can stop in nearly same distance as I can without TOWD. I was pushed into the middle of a intersection one time while towing a boat. Was a panic stop and I had all four brakes skidding on the motor home. I have never had that problem with TOWD that has supplementary Brakes.

I will not TOW with out Supplementary Brakes.......!!!!!!!!!

I can also tow into Canada and several states that have laws that state you must have brakes on towed vehicle. And I have been checked on two occasions.

[Tom_Barb]

I really believe no one gives a rat's patoot if you have supplemental braking on the towed unless you are involved in an accident. then they might investigate, but other wise?? no.

[nevadanick]

Mowermech, fyi 2 bumper pulls are legal in Ca.

[mowermech]

Generally, Reciprocity Agreements only apply to driver licensing, registration, and insurance requirements.
For instance, I have heard that CA requires a Class A CDL with doubles endorsement for towing RV doubles (two trailers), because the Class A CDL is the only license that can carry a Doubles Endorsement.
Montana has no such requirement. BUT, because of Reciprocity, I should be able to tow doubles in CA with the regular Montana license.
HOWEVER, in Montana it is legal to tow a truck/trailer/trailer combination in which both trailer have ball hitches. In CA, they say, the first trailer must be a fifth wheel hitch. I would probably get a ticket in Ca for a ball/ball double tow, even though it is legal in MT!
Another example is the tire width issue. In MT, if your tires extend beyond the fender flares an inch or two, nobody cares. HOWEVER, if you take that rig to Moab, Utah, to run the slick rock trails, you just might get a ticket. It has happened!

As to trailer braking, you must meet or exceed the minimum requirements for the state in which you are traveling. If the state (as MT does) requires brakes on all wheels of a trailer, and your trailer only has brakes of 2 out of 4 wheels, you are illegal in MT. It is extremely doubtful anybody will ever check, though.

[Bumpyroad]

I thought somebody posted in this thread that CA had reciprocity, required out of state vehicles to meet home state braking system requirements. can't find it however. That sort of makes sense, as when you travel across the states the requirements could change every 400 miles.
But since we don't seem to be able to agree on the requirements, how do we expect the LEO to know them for 49 other states, or do they just cite you for it and let the courts decide?
but that brings up an interesting issue, Mowermech points out that NC has a requirement for a braking system. If you are driving a NC registered RV/toad combo that does NOT have a braking system installed, and are pulled over in a state that does NOT require one, shouldn't they claim since your combo is illegal in the licensed/registered/home state you can be cited for not having one?
bumpy

[Bumpyroad]

braindead0 wrote:
The only problem I would see is if you have to brake in an emergency, your toad will likely jackknife. Maybe cause damage to the hitch? Doesn't seem like a safety issue, your RV should have plenty of brakes for that combo..

a jack knifed toad could cause a whole lot more problem than hitch damage. could cause loss of control of RV.
bumpy

[2gypsies1]

nevadanick wrote:
What some do not realise is that alot of motorhomes have the capacity to carry the towed vehicle, so then how do you explain that they would need aux brakes.

Towing a vehicle is quite different than stopping one.

[mowermech]

willald, strangely enough, NC is one state that actually HAS a requirement for aux. braking!
North Carolina Statute 20-124 (f) "Every semitrailer, or trailer, or separate vehicle, attached by a drawbar or coupling to a towing vehicle, and having a gross weight of two tons, and all house trailers of 1,000 pounds gross weight or more, shall be equipped with brakes controlled or operated by the driver of the towing vehicle, which shall conform to the specifications set forth in subsection (e) of this section and shall be of a type approved by the Commissioner."

The gross weight limit is 4000 lbs., and the brakes must be controlled or operated by the driver!

[willald]

This discussion is always amusing, and generally always follows the same basic pattern, like this:

One poster says: It is required by law in most states! Use one or break the law and risk paying the consequences!

Another one (usually mowermech) says: No, it is NOT required by law in most states, here are the specific laws stating, proving such....blah blah blah...

previous poster replies: Wellll, I don't care what the law says, I'm not going to chance it, I chose to use a supplemental brake for safety regardless!

Response: That's fine, that's your choice. But, quit throwing out false statements saying the law requires such just to justify your choice, because truth is, the law does NOT require it in most states, you just chose to use one.

...And, there is usually at least one that tries propagating that complete myth, about insurance refusing coverage if an accident happens when not using such a system.

Does provide for some entertaining reading, if nothing else. 🙂

[irishtom29]

I too have been considering whether to get a toad braking system, what with the car I intend to pull behind my new RV weighing under 3000 pounds. And I'm satisfied that in most places I'd be legal without one. But in my case (I have an Allegro 32SA with a 24,000 pound GVWR and a 3000 pound CCC) in use my combined weights will be over my GVWR and in my chassis manual Ford says to use supplemental brakes when the weight of the RV and toad exceed the GVWR. So I'll use the machine as intended by Ford, whether legally required or not.

I was prompted to refer to the manual by a previous post in this thread.

[mowermech]

"Read it again. that's rule is for those who are under 3000# and it must be demonstrated
to quote:
C-2 Combinations of a two-axle towing vehicle and a trailer with a gross trailer weight of 3,000 pounds or less . ."

True, but I referenced C-4.

[mowermech]

I have sent an email to WA. ST. Attorney General's office, requesting clarification of RCW 46.04.620.
I have received a confirmation that the question has been turned over to staff in the AGORegardless of the outcome, I will post it.

[irishtom29]

I weighed my 1.0 liter Ecoboost Fiesta hatchback today: 2605 pounds with a full gas tank.

[Tom_Barb]

mowermech wrote:

Y-Guy wrote:

mowermech wrote:
Please cite the Washington State law.
While you are at it, please cite the Washington State law that gives legal definitions regarding vehicles.

I think this is the section of the RCW you are asking for

RCW 46.37.340

Yes, that is ONE of the laws I asked for.
But, it references RCW 46.37.351, Performance Ability of Brakes. For our purposes, look at Para 3, C-4. IF your rig can do that without aux brakes, you are legal!

Now, look at RCW 46.04.620, (the other law I asked for) which states:
"Trailer" includes every vehicle without motive power designed for being drawn by or used in conjunction with a motor vehicle constructed so that no appreciable part of its weight rests upon or is carried by such motor vehicle, but does not include a municipal transit vehicle, or any portion thereof. "Trailer" does not include a cargo extension.
Note that a "trailer" includes EVERY vehicle WITHOUT MOTIVE POWER designed for being drawn by or used in conjunction with a motor vehicle".
Is that an accurate description of a towed motor vehicle?
It appears that in Washington State a towed motor vehicle does not meet the legal definition of a "trailer"! If that is true, trailer braking laws do not apply!

It does not require a law degree to READ most laws. They are usually written in language that nearly anybody can understand, as in the three laws noted above for Washington State, or the Montana laws I previously noted.
It ain't brain surgery, folks.

Read it again. that's rule is for those who are under 3000# and it must be demonstrated
to quote:
C-2 Combinations of a two-axle towing vehicle and a trailer with a gross trailer weight of 3,000 pounds or less . . . .