Supplemental Brakes Confession Time

[GreenSalsa]

Hello.

Long time member and have been driving my American Coach Revolution 42T for over 2 years now and LOVE it.

I just upgraded my 2007 Ford Escape (towed it with a two wheel tow dolly) to a 2017 Ford Edge.

I have lusted over flat towing for the past 24+ months, now that I have a vehicle that I can do it with my question is this:

My rig can tow 15,000 lbs. Do I really need a supplemental brake system for a car that has a curb weight of 4,000 lbs? I seriously doubt I will even know it is back there. I am completely confident the rig will stop the car.

What say the crowd? Do I need it or will I be okay with out it?

[BUTCHPHI]

Well now - THAT'S THE ANSWER - let's all make sure we don't do any sudden braking.

[Kayteg1]

Don't buy the the opinions that it is required by law.
Buying small tractor in Nebraska, I was offered new 7000 lb equipment trailer with no brakes. I was driving 4000 lb SUV and would be perfectly legal.
Toads are not trailers and are legal to tow with no brakes in all states last time I was checking, but there might be updates in last years.
Still if you can find brake system that is really reliable and doesn't cost more than the toad, you can't go wrong with it.
BTW since the incident above, whenever I drive in Nebraska I make sure I don't do sudden braking.

[2gypsies1]

wildmanbaker wrote:
I have forgot to turn on the braking system from time to time, and not really noticed it.

With normal driving and braking you're not supposed to notice any difference if adjusted correctly. It's when you stop fast where the braking kicks in.

[HighwayJunky]

I also questioned the need for added braking for a small fiat which we tow. But, after checking state laws for towing I decided to buy a Brake Buddy and save any grief from a potential lawsuit associated with an accident with injury....People look for a reason to sue these days...

[wildmanbaker]

The regulations concerning rec. towing are not easily found, as they are in different sections of the states regulations, not just in the towing sections. I have found that our state has them scattered out in 4 sections of the regs.

[wildmanbaker]

As Ron stated, not many states require a supplemental brakes. We have a 34' gas MH and have towed 2 times without a braking system. There is not much difference between having brakes on the toad and not having them, in my opinion, but that's worth what you pay for it. My concern was if the toad came loose, and started off on its own. That is why I installed a supplemental brake system. I have forgot to turn on the braking system from time to time, and not really noticed it. What I notice more that no aux brakes is leaving the steering wheel lock, and leaving the emergency brake on. Boy, do I get some great looks from people when I get out to release the emergency brake.

[Effy]

Bumpyroad wrote:

Effy wrote:

Beating a dead horse here but I read countless stories of people being charged for texting while driving. Happened to my sister. .

Did it make it into the paper,"EFFYs sister ticketed for texting"?
if so it was a very slow news day.
bumpy

Yes. Most citiy newspapers/sites have a section to read daily police briefs . It was a normal news day. If I recall there were several citations for texting and driving. If it were an accident involving a casualty a texting crash usually makes headline news. Pretty similar to most city papers. I assure I can find tons more stories on texting driving crashes than you can for civil suits on the lack of supplemental braking .

[Bumpyroad]

Effy wrote:

Beating a dead horse here but I read countless stories of people being charged for texting while driving. Happened to my sister. .

Did it make it into the paper,"EFFYs sister ticketed for texting"?
if so it was a very slow news day.
bumpy

[slickest1]

The last thing I would worry about is a jury. It is just common sense to put a braking system on a toad. I have had to make a panic stop once. I was darn glad I had toad brakes because if I didn't have them I am sure I would have hit the guy that pulled in front of me.
If you think about it towbars are rated mostly UP to 10,000 lbs. some are less than that. When you slam on the brakes the weight of your toad is in motion and the stress that you have put on that towbar would be alot more than what you are pulling.For what it costs it may be the cheapest insurance you can get.

[rgatijnet1]

PastorCharlie wrote:
Green Salsa, in NY and NC under 1,000 lbs. is the limit for no brake system. There is no state where it is legal to tow without a braking system if the tow is 1,000 lbs. or more.

http://www.brakebuddy.com/towing-laws

Actually I contacted several states and got the actual interpretation of the laws regarding a "vehicle in tow", which is DIFFERENT than a "trailer in tow" that the brake manufacturers use. I have posted the actual responses from several states on this forum before but suffice it to say that a "vehicle in tow" is not required to have supplemental braking in any state that I contacted.
That said, I do use a Blue Ox braking system in my toad but I also know that I will NOT be breaking ANY laws if my Blue Ox fails and I want to continue on my trip.
If I worried what a jury would do, I guess I would never drive a motor home, or any vehicle, at all.

[PastorCharlie]

Green Salsa, in NY and NC under 1,000 lbs. is the limit for no brake system. There is no state where it is legal to tow without a braking system if the tow is 1,000 lbs. or more.

http://www.brakebuddy.com/towing-laws

[Effy]

Bumpyroad wrote:

Effy wrote:
I think we all agree that it's a good idea. I just don't buy into the claim that if you don't have one then by default you lose everything in a civil case. Still waiting for someone to prove that . If you aren't required by law, then it's a straw man argument.

If the owner's manual recommends that if you tow a toad over xxx lbs., that a braking system should be used, any "good" lawyer can convince the jury that the RVer was negligent and work on the sympathy of the jurors in assessing damages.
I have never read in the paper where a person was "nailed" for texting while driving which I am sure has happened primarily because that does not make headlines. and lets separate civil vs criminal actions.
bumpy

Beating a dead horse here but I read countless stories of people being charged for texting while driving. Happened to my sister. This is totally apples and oranges. Oh and still don't see any examples. I see a lot of claims but nothing of proof. And I don't see anything in MY MH manual stating any of what you claim. I'm done.

To the OP, I am glad of your decision to install one. Whatever the persuading factor was.

[Bumpyroad]

Effy wrote:
I think we all agree that it's a good idea. I just don't buy into the claim that if you don't have one then by default you lose everything in a civil case. Still waiting for someone to prove that . If you aren't required by law, then it's a straw man argument.

If the owner's manual recommends that if you tow a toad over xxx lbs., that a braking system should be used, any "good" lawyer can convince the jury that the RVer was negligent and work on the sympathy of the jurors in assessing damages.
I have never read in the paper where a person was "nailed" for texting while driving which I am sure has happened primarily because that does not make headlines. and lets separate civil vs criminal actions.
bumpy

[Effy]

Correct, I have not done due diligence on case research . I don't need to as I have a braking system. I am not the one who made the claim about losing a civil case so why do I need to dig to find a case about it ? You have proof, then post a link. Numerous cases should be available to support it since it seems to be such a prevalent reason to install one. For me it's not about mitigating being sued, my motive is safety. Legal defense just happens to be a potential benefit if it ever came to that. I think we all agree that it's a good idea. I just don't buy into the claim that if you don't have one then by default you lose everything in a civil case. Still waiting for someone to prove that . If you aren't required by law, then it's a straw man argument.

[Bumpyroad]

fpresto wrote:

Effy wrote:
Despite all the claims of it on this forum I have NEVER read of any documented case where a person lost a court case because of a lack of a supplemental braking system on a MH towing a car.

I have posted several times on this forum about the court case I attended and the results. You should be able to look it up under my user name. Of course you can choose to assume that I am lying or just made it up. That is your decision. I will state again that civil trials are based on emotions of the jury and a good lawyer knows how to play to emotion. Driving an expensive motorhome = obviously rich, not using supplemental brakes = obviously don't care about the safety of the general public and it could be any of the jury or their children injured, etc.

well stated.
and I can assure you that if I am ever hit by a RV my questions to the investigating officer will include 1) that appears to weigh over 26,001 lbs. so does he/she have an appropriate license? 2) DO THEY HAVE A braking system on their toad? etc. as is recommended in the manufacturer's supplied information.
and I certainly would not expect this type of detail to be included in any write up of an accident. I "assume" that Effy has NOT done a complete and thorough search thru a lawyer's case studies, etc.but is relying on reading the Washington Compost.

bumpy