Brake Accessory needed on Vehicle being Towed?

[MSHappyCampers]

Personally, I would not tow any vehicle without a braking system! It will be illegal in some states. JMHO

[Winger2]

I have never had a braking system in the past. Right now my toad is a Nissan Versa Note and its about 2,600 lbs.
Have no idea its back there when pulling or stopping. I have all the safety cables. But at this point in my life I am afraid of a catastrophic failure and breakaway. So I installed an RVI3.

[Ljwt330]

Originally Posted by Biljol

This is exactly the wording we where fighting the 4 different judges all interpreted that as an actively motorized vehicle. Once the motor was off and not connected to control the wheels (when putting the manual transmission in neutral or the transfer case in neutral) the vehicles were no longer motorized and required breaks,

One judge in his opinion went so far as to say once the engine is disconnected from the wheels it is the same as having a utility trailer with a motor engine in the cargo area.

I am glad to hear you have never had an issue but have you ever been stoped and inspected by a CA trooper?

I didn't want to enter this part of the discussion because I don't know the details of your case. However, from what you just posted, it appears the judge does not know the California Vehicle Code regarding this situation. I will quote it, below using emphasis but not interpretation. I will also provide a link to the code sections.

From the California Vehicle Code:


26458. (a) The braking system on every motor vehicle used to tow another vehicle shall be so arranged that one control on the towing vehicle shall, when applied, operate all the service brakes on the power unit and combination of vehicles when either or both of the following conditions exist: (11007)

(1) The towing vehicle is required to be equipped with power brakes. (11008)

(2) The towed vehicle is required to be equipped with brakes and is equipped with power brakes. (11009)

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not be construed to prohibit motor vehicles from being equipped with an additional control to be used to operate the brakes on the trailer or trailers. (11010)

(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following combinations of vehicles, if the combination of vehicles meets the stopping distance requirements of Section 26454: (11011)

(1) Vehicles engaged in driveaway-towaway operations. (11012)

(2) Disabled vehicles, while being towed. (11013)

(3) Towed motor vehicles. (11014)

(4) Trailers equipped with inertially controlled brakes which are designed to be applied automatically upon breakaway from the towing vehicle and which are capable of stopping and holding the trailer stationary for not less than 15 minutes. (11015)

California Law - Vehicle Code - Chapter 3. Brakes

I cannot comment on your court case and do not doubt your experience. What I have posted, however, is verbatim from the CVC, and it specifically exempts motor vehicles from having to have operating brakes when under tow. That is not an interpretation.

[awol50]

Originally Posted by Biljol

This is exactly the wording we where fighting the 4 different judges all interpreted that as an actively motorized vehicle. Once the motor was off and not connected to control the wheels (when putting the manual transmission in neutral or the transfer case in neutral) the vehicles were no longer motorized and required breaks,

One judge in his opinion went so far as to say once the engine is disconnected from the wheels it is the same as having a utility trailer with a motor engine in the cargo area.

I am glad to hear you have never had an issue but have you ever been stoped and inspected by a CA trooper?

That interpretation by the judge makes no sense. How could you or why would you tow an active driver controlled toad?

Reminds me of a situation i once had when i got a parking ticket for parking in a univ of washington parking lot on a saturday. The sign directly in front of my parking spot said "parking by permit only monday-friday". The ticket was for parking without a permit on a saturday.

The administrative judge i first appealed to said my parking ticket was valid despite the clear wording on the sign in front of my car. He said i should have known i couldnt park anywhere on campus at anytime without a permit. I asked him then why the sign saying permit parking only for monday-friday. He just repeated his original rationale.
Appealed and a month later got a letter in the mail saying ticket was dismissed.

[Biljol]

Did not want to hijack the thread I can only tell you we took the case to a 3 judge appellate court.
They upheld the lower court’s decision that any non motorized item being towed was a trailer and required breaks.

They deemed any structure that did not have the motor somehow connected to the road was not motorized. According to the them.

As an example they used a wagon. Once the motor in a car is disengaged from wheels it is now a wagon and as such would require breaks under the code.

I do not agree with their opinion but I have had to comply to avoid fines.

[n2zon]

Originally Posted by DavidT2252

I just purchased a 2000 Coachman Santara. It is 36ft long and has a V10.
I will be towing a Geo Tracker. I know the RV will not be a speed demon.
But the best I can do!
Opinions? Will I need to put a brake assist on the Geo?


Thanks

Whether you require them legally or not, it's a really good idea to have toad brakes. Why? To reduce your stopping distance in an emergency. For more than you probably wanted to know about that, read posts #17-#22, here:

https://www.irv2.com/forums/f85/uhau...es-515069.html

Nobody's been along to correct the physics yet, so I think I might actually have got it right. ;-)

[awol50]

Originally Posted by Biljol

Did not want to hijack the thread I can only tell you we took the case to a 3 judge appellate court.
They upheld the lower court’s decision that any non motorized item being towed was a trailer and required breaks.

They deemed any structure that did not have the motor somehow connected to the road was not motorized. According to the them.

As an example they used a wagon. Once the motor in a car is disengaged from wheels it is now a wagon and as such would require breaks under the code.

I do not agree with their opinion but I have had to comply to avoid fines.

I guess even complete idiots can be judges. How they can torture the definition of a motor vehicle as you describe to justify their conclusion is silly.
I guess i now park my wagon ( my toad) in the garage because i leave it in neutral.
I will just take my chances in cali then. I think cops have better things to do then randomly pull over rvs to check for toad brakes.

[Shadow5501]

Originally Posted by Ljwt330

I didn't want to enter this part of the discussion because I don't know the details of your case. However, from what you just posted, it appears the judge does not know the California Vehicle Code regarding this situation. I will quote it, below using emphasis but not interpretation. I will also provide a link to the code sections.

From the California Vehicle Code:


26458. (a) The braking system on every motor vehicle used to tow another vehicle shall be so arranged that one control on the towing vehicle shall, when applied, operate all the service brakes on the power unit and combination of vehicles when either or both of the following conditions exist: (11007)

(1) The towing vehicle is required to be equipped with power brakes. (11008)

(2) The towed vehicle is required to be equipped with brakes and is equipped with power brakes. (11009)

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not be construed to prohibit motor vehicles from being equipped with an additional control to be used to operate the brakes on the trailer or trailers. (11010)

(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following combinations of vehicles, if the combination of vehicles meets the stopping distance requirements of Section 26454: (11011)

(1) Vehicles engaged in driveaway-towaway operations. (11012)

(2) Disabled vehicles, while being towed. (11013)

(3) Towed motor vehicles. (11014)

(4) Trailers equipped with inertially controlled brakes which are designed to be applied automatically upon breakaway from the towing vehicle and which are capable of stopping and holding the trailer stationary for not less than 15 minutes. (11015)

California Law - Vehicle Code - Chapter 3. Brakes

I cannot comment on your court case and do not doubt your experience. What I have posted, however, is verbatim from the CVC, and it specifically exempts motor vehicles from having to have operating brakes when under tow. That is not an interpretation.

I think what you are missing is that “motor vehicle” has a specific legal definition under California law.

VEHICLE CODE - VEH
DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED [100 - 681] ( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
415.
(a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
(b) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.
(c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...sectionNum=415

If a motor vehicle is by definition self propelled, then when it is being towed behind an RV it is no longer a motor vehicle under California law and no longer exempt from section 1107.

Just a guess, but likely section 415 has precedence and hence a “towed motor vehicle” isn’t a thing under law, and hence does not exempt anyone from having a braking system that meets California law. Basically B3 is null and void. Contradictions and lack of clarity in the law certainly happens.

[Ljwt330]

Originally Posted by Shadow5501

I think what you are missing is that “motor vehicle” has a specific legal definition under California law.

VEHICLE CODE - VEH
DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED [100 - 681] ( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
415.
(a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
(b) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.
(c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...sectionNum=415

If a motor vehicle is by definition self propelled, then when it is being towed behind an RV it is no longer a motor vehicle under California law and no longer exempt from section 1107.

Just a guess, but likely section 415 has precedence and hence a “towed motor vehicle” isn’t a thing under law, and hence does not exempt anyone from having a braking system that meets California law. Basically B3 is null and void. Contradictions and lack of clarity in the law certainly happens.

Actually, I was fully aware of the definition of "motor vehicle," and I understand your logic--it's probably the same logic used by the judge in the case mentioned previously.

However, I will have to disagree. By that logic, once you park your car, it is no longer a "motor vehicle". By that logic, you can coast down a hill on the sidewalk because it is no longer a "motor vehicle." Try telling that to the cop that is writing you up.

The section quoted purposely exempts "motor vehicles" when being towed, by name. There is only one reason why that clause is so specific and that is to exclude motor vehicles from the regulation. If you use the "judge's logic" and state a towed motor vehicle becomes simply a "vehicle", then the clause in question contradicts the entire subsection "a". Simply substitute the word "vehicle" in place of "motor vehicle" in clause 3. It now "means" that towed vehicles are exempt from subsection "a", which applies to "towed vehicles." As goofy as regulations can be, it can't be that goofy.

If a "motor vehicle" ceased to be a motor vehicle once the engine was disengaged, there would be no need for that clause at all and a towed car would need to have working brakes. Clearly, because the clause is there, the intent of the CVC is to exempt towed motor vehicles from the brake requirement.

Reality check. Judges and troopers do the interpretation, regardless of the wording. It becomes an "Is it worth it" effort to challenge an interpretation that may seem legally incorrect. I am not a lawyer an I may be missing some information found in the CVC, but I am not convinced that a motor vehicle becomes a trailer, or simply a vehicle, under the CVC regulations simply because the motor is not propelling the vehicle.

[Alan_Hepburn]

I belong to a motorcycle forum that actually has an entire sub-forum populated by LEOs, both local and CHP. I've posted this discussion over there and will report back what our CHP has to say about this.

[AnotherMike]

Quote trimmed for brevity...

Originally Posted by TampaDave

Used Brake Buddy can be found on ebay or craigslist if you look, the older ones that plug into the cigarette lighter are a piece of cake to install (still gotta run one wire thru the firewall for the breakaway switch but that's it).

DO NOT trust a cigarette lighter plug for constant power unless in a supervised situation... i.e. you are sitting there and can push it back in to make contact.

The center contact on the plug has a spring that gets compressed as the plug is inserted. Under a vibration situation the spring will try to push the plug back out, and eventually break contact, unless the friction of the side contact exceeds the spring pressure.

Back in the 1950s and 60s and early 70s that was the case, but not so with the cheap chinese plugs these days.

If you are right there to plug your cellphone charger back in is not a problem, however it would be a problem it caused your toad braking system to not operate.

Personally, I'd use a different connector instead of a cigarette lighter plug.

Mike

[RV735]

How much safety margin do you want when the need arises to stop to avoid an accident?
Here is a simple illustration of how weights effects stopping distance.

Assuming we look at weight as the only variable with all other parameters effecting stopping distance being equal.

RV 30k weight
Toad 3K weight

Assumption for illustration, the RV can stop in 200 feet form 60mph. This distance will vary based on an individual RV, Toad, etc and only give you an idea of the change in stopping distance.

Add 3K +30K
200/30 = X/3+30
X=220 feet or 20 feet more stopping distance required with the toad in this illustration.
.
220/200 = 10% more

This assumption is for understanding and dose not take into consideration: coefficients of friction, tire size or manufacture or weather etc.

I expect the stopping distance increase to be close to proportional to the weight change.

How much safety margin do you need in an emergency stop?

[ArtJoyce]

I say yes. But the one question is what does your state say. Towing a car, I would think your state expects you to have brakes as defined by the states trailer brakes requirements. Most states require trailers to have brakes if they are over a certain weight. Depending on the state is normaly between about 1500 to 2500 lbs.

[Biljol]

As you can see there are many many thoughts on breaks for your toad.

On a personal level whether or not a state requires breaks I think a moot point.

Each individual needs to do what they feel comfortable doing. For me that was installing a nsa ready break. Not because my state requires it not because other states I travel in require it but because I believe it’s the right thing to do. For the safety of myself and others.

Remember that break system laws are not reciprocated so you must obey the law in the state you are traveling in.