Dinghy brakes or not?

OK, I got a response from the AG. They say they are forbidden by law from answering my question as to whether a towed motor vehicle is a "trailer" in WA ST.
So, if anybody really wants an answer to the question, they will have to contact an attorney and pay him (or her) to answer it.
I certainly won't do that!

I tried to cut and paste the email I received, but the site would not allow it.

mowermech wrote:
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 AGO. Regardless of the outcome, I will post it.

To date, I have not received any response from the WA State AG's office.

This question comes up regularly and ALWAYS turns into a contest of legality vs safety. To me, covering a potential break-away of the toad is what would concern me most. I don't care what the legal aspects are, but I dread the thought of my toad breaking loose and killing someone, no matter how remote the possibility.

When we had our Monaco Executive, we were 48,000lbs, towing less than 4,000lbs. I could never tell the toad was back there. When we had our Pace Arrow, we were 25,000lbs towing the same and could definitely feel the toad back there.

In both cases I had a Brake Buddy, but will admit to skipping using it for a few short trips behind the Monaco.

You're relying on 2 hitch pins and a few bolts to keep that toad fastened to the coach. Yes, there are safety chains, blah, blah, blah..... However the breakaway protection IMHO, is well worth the investment and setup time of having the braking system for the toad. Legality is just a secondary concern for me.

You will probably never have a breakaway happen to you, BUT........ What if???????

All I know is that I can stop MUCH faster with TOAD brakes than without. I drove for a few years without and then added them. What a difference. I had a near accident shortly after installing the aux brakes and know I would have nailed the person who cut in front and then slammed on their brakes just ahead of me.

Every car since then has had aux brakes without exception. I like the security of those brakes. I will never know how many accidents the brakes may have saved us from. Small cost for peace of mind and a little better safety.

Jayco-noslide wrote:
After reading most of these posts I'm still not sure if I will get aux. brakes for my Sonic or not. It seems to me it's like a lot of things in life; do you get everything you can to be "safe" and consider the costs necessary or irrelevant or do you choose to gamble a little and save over $1000 and some extra bother in this case. If being brakeless were absolutely illegal everywhere and if I personally felt braking were obviously inadequate, I would be getting brakes tomorrow. But neither of those conditions is true so it seems mainly the idea that I might get sued or ticketed so I will probably remain brakeless for now.

The problem I have with this statement is, you are not gambling with YOUR life. You are gambling with the lives of everyone else on the highway! You have no right to gamble with my life or the lives of my loved ones.

Jayco-noslide wrote:
After reading most of these posts I'm still not sure if I will get aux. brakes for my Sonic or not. It seems to me it's like a lot of things in life; do you get everything you can to be "safe" and consider the costs necessary or irrelevant or do you choose to gamble a little and save over $1000 and some extra bother in this case. If being brakeless were absolutely illegal everywhere and if I personally felt braking were obviously inadequate, I would be getting brakes tomorrow. But neither of those conditions is true so it seems mainly the idea that I might get sued or ticketed so I will probably remain brakeless for now.

sure, don't waste $1000 for safety, do spend $5,000 for full body paint.
bumpy

After reading most of these posts I'm still not sure if I will get aux. brakes for my Sonic or not. It seems to me it's like a lot of things in life; do you get everything you can to be "safe" and consider the costs necessary or irrelevant or do you choose to gamble a little and save over $1000 and some extra bother in this case. If being brakeless were absolutely illegal everywhere and if I personally felt braking were obviously inadequate, I would be getting brakes tomorrow. But neither of those conditions is true so it seems mainly the idea that I might get sued or ticketed so I will probably remain brakeless for now.

as far as the LEO writing the ticket, I asked my next door neighbor who was a chief of police in a NJ town what constituted an adequate stop for a stop sign. the response I got was that the LEO should write the ticket if he/she felt the stop was not adequate and they would get backed by the office and they could fight it out in court.
I think if a LEO saw a combination that seemed to exceed the standards but couldn't weigh the vehicles on the spot, etc. that a ticket could be written.
and since stopping distance will vary drastically dependent on road surface, the standard seems to me to be unenforceable due to ambiguity.
bumpy

mowermech wrote:
Bumpy, the "Braking Performance Standards" are ALREADY in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Most state laws simply mirror the FMVSS.
CA does not. They allow 5 feet further than FMVSS. MT is practically word-for-word, as are many other states. The Standard specifies that the test is to be done on a level, clean, dry, hard surface. It does not specify what the surface is to be made of. See MCA 61-9-312 to find the exact wording.
If a LEO writes a ticket for failing to meet the standard, it is HIS responsibility to show the ticket is for a valid infraction, it is not the driver's responsibility to prove the ticket is wrong. If the LEO can not accurately perform the necessary test, he will not write the ticket.
Does that mean the Braking Performance Standard is rarely enforced, and for all practical purposes is unenforceable?
Yes, I guess it does!

This is right.

An easy way to know that your vehicle combination meets the minum standards of FMVSS is to ensure that, either your combination does not exceed the towing vehicle's GVWR, without brakes on the towed vehicle, -or- that both vehicles in the combination have brakes.

Either way, it will meet the standard.

Bumpy, the "Braking Performance Standards" are ALREADY in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Most state laws simply mirror the FMVSS.
CA does not. They allow 5 feet further than FMVSS. MT is practically word-for-word, as are many other states. The Standard specifies that the test is to be done on a level, clean, dry, hard surface. It does not specify what the surface is to be made of. See MCA 61-9-312 to find the exact wording.
If a LEO writes a ticket for failing to meet the standard, it is HIS responsibility to show the ticket is for a valid infraction, it is not the driver's responsibility to prove the ticket is wrong. If the LEO can not accurately perform the necessary test, he will not write the ticket.
Does that mean the Braking Performance Standard is rarely enforced, and for all practical purposes is unenforceable?
Yes, I guess it does!