Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa5x
Every state requires auxiliary brakes on anything weighing more than 1500 lbs, toad, trailer, or whatever.
|
Not accurate. I will not say snarky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smeg99
Those that say it is not the law to have a braking system should actually look up the facts. It is the law everywhere except Missouri, most based on weight, a couple based on stopping distance. Here are 2 links I took 1 minute to look up. I'm sure each state and province has it on their own web site:
Yes they do
https://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/trailer-brakes/
https://www.towshop.com/trailer_supp...aking_laws.htm
If you are involved in an accident without tow brakes lawyers will eat you alive (even in Missouri), even if you are not at fault because you could have stopped or slowed significantly more with a braking system. |
I looked it up and know the laws. This post is inaccurate as it is stated in an absolute (Because I am legal in Mass and Maine, and this clearly says otherwise), but if this is the opinion of the poster, I will accept it as just that, opinion, not fact. It is snarky however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rggarrott
It's common sense & its the law. Imagine what the personal injury lawyer will do to you if you end up hitting another vehicle and they can blame it on no auxiliary brake? What would your insurance company say if you are violating state law?
State and Province Towing Laws |
1. You may feel it to be common sense, but that is an opinion. It is the law some places, and not required by law in other places. In other words, this post is inaccurate.
2. A personal injury lawyer cannot require you to do something with your vehicle that is not required by law. So I do not need to imagine it.
Besides, I record video going forward and reverse. Because of that, I need not imagine anything. I record and can prove everything.
3. As I am not violating the law, despite your inaccurate claim, so my insurance company will have nothing to say on this topic. If I violate the law, it depends on the law. (Drunk driving violation, they may complain, following too closely, they cannot complain, etc)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbezemek
|
Simply not accurate. Possibly snarky, not sure. In the eye of the beholder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratoguy
As others have posted, here is another site that shows state laws. I don’t think people are “snarky”. I think that they are giving their honest opinion in the name of safety and citing references that they believe support their opinion. So rather be at someone’s throat because you feel, through words in print, and not through voice that would indicate emotion, let it go. They are not putting you down because their opinion is different than yours. We are all in this together, and share a love of RV’ing. Let’s remember that, and enjoy each other’s presence here, and continue to share our combined wealth of knowledge. Please stop reading emotion into something in print that doesn’t clearly indicate anything demeaning, unless one clearly indicates in writing that they think that someone’s opinion or thoughts are sub par.
RVSafely.com |
Thank you and I appreciate you trying to be the mediator, but I can tell when someone is snarky or not. I have posted some examples. Many other posts duplicate the opinions on these posts, but I did not include them if they were polite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaspryan
That’s like asking, ‘Do you drive on the right side of the road?’ The answer is YES, of course; It’s required by law almost everywhere in North America.
|
undeniably snarky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarata
Why wouldn't you its the law
|
Could be ignorant of the fact that this is wrong. But could be snarky too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarata
Hey if your not going to have an auxiliary break,why not go without insurance also
|
Clearly and undeniably snarky
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorn
Yes
Crazy to not. 3plus tons on a hitch. Really.
|
Mostly just opinion. Till the last word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCVJeff
Ummmm..... yes it is
When the judge asks you if your vehicle was equipped with an emergency brake that could have prevented the head-on with a bus going the other direction, you may not have a good day with that answer..
|
1. The story with the school bus was not a head on anything.
2. The story with the school bus was clearly operator error based on limited visibility. The poster felt his aux brake helped to compensate for his not seeing the amber flashers. That may be accurate, and may be opinion, but we are still talking about compensating for operator error. That was not part of the OP Question. Although it may have been valid.
3. There is no breaking system that can help you avoid a head on with a bus going the other direction, unless the breaking system puts you in a fast reverse, or moves you sideways. Also, there is no judge that can reasonable ask you if you have an aux breaking system that can defy physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldman5145
Yes I do and there is more of an issue here. I could care less about the system in a normal braking situation. A year or so ago I was going east early one weekday morning on a two lane 55 MPH highway. I had on my sunglasses, my window shade was as low as possible and all I could see was a huge yellow sun I was going into. I caught the image of a school bus going west. I never saw the yellow caution lights come on that it was slowing to pick up children. Suddenly, I see RED flashing lights. I quickly applied hard braking and I barely got stopped before the approaching bus. Children were going to cross the road in front of me, to board the bus. I was not 10 miles from home! I needed that brake system.  I was able to stop the MH and the 4000 lb toad behind me.
That game of "I stay close to home" doesn't hold water. You could be risking someone's life. One or a thousand miles why take a chance.
I didn't post this to insult or hurt anyone's feelings. I posted it because safety equipment not only protects you, it also can protect someones loved one!  |
The story about the bus is clearly operator error. Having the sun in your eyes is not a reasonable excuse to hit anyone, at any time. It is realistic and potentially a real situation however. Any police would still call it operator error. If you cannot see in front of your vehicle for sun or any other reason, you should not keep driving.
And the conclusion about 'I stay close to home...' is clearly opinion. I happen to agree with it, but it is still opinion.
However, while this posting states the reason he uses aux brakes is that he feels that without those aux brakes his rig could not have compensated for his operator error. That may or may not be true, but it is surely his opinion.
Also, he stated his concern for others, and his opinion that there is more to consider than your own safety.
I do disagree with much of what was posted here, but he was not snarky, and was polite. I do not have to agree to understand there was effort to not be snarky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim-l
Yes, it’s required by law.
|
Simply not accurate. Not snarky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Ralph
Not sure how the brakes on my 2,300 lb toad could prevent me from having a head on with a bus? Explain please.
|
Reasonable question. Not snarky in my opinion, but does have just a little edge to it.
I am not offended by people's opinions. I can however identify snarky comments. Not everyone here is polite. Not everyone here, when posting their opinions, especially when they confuse their opinions with facts, realizes how snarky they sound. I was just pointing it out.
I am as guilty of fault as the next guy. I know it and admit it. I am even guilty of snark from time to time. The only difference is I usually know the difference between opinion and fact, and I do not deny my shortcomings.
Linear Mode
