Tom
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 51,924
Understood Bernie, but he often finds stuff that others can't.
CA toad brake requirements
- Thread starter Buddy Tott
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
John From Detroit
Well-known member
That is one thing about Supplemental braking systems and seat belts both
Though the law of the land may vary from state to state
The laws of PHYSICS do not,
You are way better off WITH the towed breaking
And you are way better off WITH seat belts
Something to remember
Not using safety gear is like laying your money on the table at Lost Wages.. Ur, Los Vegas
Oh, there is always the occasional person who drops a dollar in the slot and walks out a millionaire.
Just like everyone I'm sure knows of a person who claims that NOT wearing his seat belt kept him alive
And I'm sure there is someone out there who can cite a case where NOT having towed brakes saved his rig.
But there is one difference.. In Las Vegas you loose your wages.. In the Devil's house of chance, which is where you play when you don't use safety gear.. It's your life you can loose
And in the end... The house ALWAYS wins
Though the law of the land may vary from state to state
The laws of PHYSICS do not,
You are way better off WITH the towed breaking
And you are way better off WITH seat belts
Something to remember
Not using safety gear is like laying your money on the table at Lost Wages.. Ur, Los Vegas
Oh, there is always the occasional person who drops a dollar in the slot and walks out a millionaire.
Just like everyone I'm sure knows of a person who claims that NOT wearing his seat belt kept him alive
And I'm sure there is someone out there who can cite a case where NOT having towed brakes saved his rig.
But there is one difference.. In Las Vegas you loose your wages.. In the Devil's house of chance, which is where you play when you don't use safety gear.. It's your life you can loose
And in the end... The house ALWAYS wins
BernieD
Well-known member
Tom said:
That's why you are grasshopper and he is master ;D ;D
Tom
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 51,924
So he keeps telling me Bernie ;D
Carl L
Moderator Emeritus
Tom said:
One must learn to live with disappointment, Grasshopper. Truly it is said that the sound of one hand clapping is not very loud. Nor is the rhythm very catchy. But in a tough joint, it is often the best one can get.
Tom
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 51,924
Ah so.
You might want to check CA Vehicle Code, Chapter 3, BRAKES, Article 2, Operation of Brakes, Section 26454 VC. Braking requirements for "motor vehicle or combination of vehicles". At 20 MPH, stopping distance 50 feet. Sections 26302 (d) VC, 26303 VC, 26311 (c) VC, all refer to 26454 VC.
OP
OP
Buddy Tott
Well-known member
Sam.net
I agree, in part. 26302VC however, refers to trailers and no-where does the Ca Veh. Code define an auto. (being towed as a toad) as a trailer. Though certainly it could be argued that it may fall under that definition. But, reading through the variety of definitions and verbage concerning 'trailers' it basically all refers to platforms on axles, which have no independant means of propulsion and/or steering (my defininition), being drawn by a vehicle which does. 26454b VC refers to stopping distances, et all, but nothing requiring the use or implementation of a secondary or supplemental braking system (on a toad). So, as far as I can see, that if MH brakes are adequate, under the 20mph / 50ft rule, no specific violation occurs. Granted 26454a VC, is a 'catch-all' but also refers to all vehicles, with or without toads or trailers.
BT
I agree, in part. 26302VC however, refers to trailers and no-where does the Ca Veh. Code define an auto. (being towed as a toad) as a trailer. Though certainly it could be argued that it may fall under that definition. But, reading through the variety of definitions and verbage concerning 'trailers' it basically all refers to platforms on axles, which have no independant means of propulsion and/or steering (my defininition), being drawn by a vehicle which does. 26454b VC refers to stopping distances, et all, but nothing requiring the use or implementation of a secondary or supplemental braking system (on a toad). So, as far as I can see, that if MH brakes are adequate, under the 20mph / 50ft rule, no specific violation occurs. Granted 26454a VC, is a 'catch-all' but also refers to all vehicles, with or without toads or trailers.
BT
Buddy,
If you look up Ca Vehicle sections "415 & 670" which defines a motor vehicle and vehicle. 415 CVC is a device-----may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway. 670 CVC is a vehicle that is self propelled. You have understand the definition of what wording is contained in the section "26454 a. & b." When you are towing a motor vehicle (engine not running or in control of a person, it is a vehicle and that vehicle weighing more than 1500 lbs and equipped with brakes has to have a means of applying those brakes on that towed vehicle. How do you do that without a supplemental braking device such as a electric, air or hydraulic actuator to apply your towed vehicle brakes? I sent a e-mail to the California Highway Patrol website for their official definition and requirements and will let you know the outcome. SAM
If you look up Ca Vehicle sections "415 & 670" which defines a motor vehicle and vehicle. 415 CVC is a device-----may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway. 670 CVC is a vehicle that is self propelled. You have understand the definition of what wording is contained in the section "26454 a. & b." When you are towing a motor vehicle (engine not running or in control of a person, it is a vehicle and that vehicle weighing more than 1500 lbs and equipped with brakes has to have a means of applying those brakes on that towed vehicle. How do you do that without a supplemental braking device such as a electric, air or hydraulic actuator to apply your towed vehicle brakes? I sent a e-mail to the California Highway Patrol website for their official definition and requirements and will let you know the outcome. SAM
OP
OP
Buddy Tott
Well-known member
Sam.net...
First let me thank you for taking the time and trouble for your research and contacting CHP. I look forward to their reply. However, I still must disagree.
In reading the definition of a 'trailer' (630 CVC) reads, "A trailer is a vehicle (so far so good) designed for carrying passenegers (still good) or property (still good[/i]) on its own structure (still good - maybe) and (Not so good) for being drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that no part of its weight rest upon any other vehicle." For the definition to apply - all the wording has to fit. The problem in this case is the use of the word 'and' and reading the whole definition in context. The 'and' infers that the vehicle/trailer is 'designed' to be drawn (towed) by a motor vehicle. Clearly an automobile does not fully complete the definition of trailer because it is not designed as such.
There is a reasonable argument that once an automobile is hooked up behind a MH, complete with all the bells and whistles, it is then 'designed', but I don't think that was the intent of the legislature...and here's why...
Every motor vehicle being towed by a tow truck (with the use of typical towing gear), would then require a supplemental braking system installed on the toad. Unless all tow trucks were made exempt. That would hardly be fair, being that there are significantly more cars being towed by tow trucks than by MH's. I think the tow truck company lobbyists saw to it that supplemental brakes were not mandatory - imagine the impact if they were.
VC 29000 - 29009 refers to vehicles being towed and even makes specific mention of Recreational Vehicles. This would be an ideal location to include supplemental braking requirements, as it also describes the actual towing mechanisms, but no such mention is made.
VC 550 (Semi-trailer) comes close to describing a vehicle being towed by another (as being a trailer and therefore requiring supplemental brakes) but requires that some part of the trailer's weight and that of its load rests upon or is carried by another vehicle. It's that latter part of the definition which doesn't fit.
Again, I look forward to CHP's response and thank you for your time.
BT
First let me thank you for taking the time and trouble for your research and contacting CHP. I look forward to their reply. However, I still must disagree.
In reading the definition of a 'trailer' (630 CVC) reads, "A trailer is a vehicle (so far so good) designed for carrying passenegers (still good) or property (still good[/i]) on its own structure (still good - maybe) and (Not so good) for being drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that no part of its weight rest upon any other vehicle." For the definition to apply - all the wording has to fit. The problem in this case is the use of the word 'and' and reading the whole definition in context. The 'and' infers that the vehicle/trailer is 'designed' to be drawn (towed) by a motor vehicle. Clearly an automobile does not fully complete the definition of trailer because it is not designed as such.
There is a reasonable argument that once an automobile is hooked up behind a MH, complete with all the bells and whistles, it is then 'designed', but I don't think that was the intent of the legislature...and here's why...
Every motor vehicle being towed by a tow truck (with the use of typical towing gear), would then require a supplemental braking system installed on the toad. Unless all tow trucks were made exempt. That would hardly be fair, being that there are significantly more cars being towed by tow trucks than by MH's. I think the tow truck company lobbyists saw to it that supplemental brakes were not mandatory - imagine the impact if they were.
VC 29000 - 29009 refers to vehicles being towed and even makes specific mention of Recreational Vehicles. This would be an ideal location to include supplemental braking requirements, as it also describes the actual towing mechanisms, but no such mention is made.
VC 550 (Semi-trailer) comes close to describing a vehicle being towed by another (as being a trailer and therefore requiring supplemental brakes) but requires that some part of the trailer's weight and that of its load rests upon or is carried by another vehicle. It's that latter part of the definition which doesn't fit.
Again, I look forward to CHP's response and thank you for your time.
BT
BT,
I received a response the California Highway Patrol in Sacramento, CA. It was from a Captain, who is the Commander of their Commercial Vehicle Section. I quote from his response: "California law does not require brakes on towed motor vehicles to be operated from the motor home provided the combination of vehicles meet the stopping requirements of Section 26454 of the Vehicle Code (VC). Section 26454 VC states in part, the service brakes of every motor vehicle or combination of vehicles shall be adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold such vehicle or combination of vehicles under all conditions of loading on any grade on which it is operated. Provided your motorhome is assigned a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more, your combination would be required to come to a complete stop within 50 feet from an initial speed of 20 miles per hour. Additionally, an emergency device is not required. "
"Section 21715 VC restricts a passenger vehicle (Motor Home) from towing more that one vehicle in cobination, except a tow dolly (car dolly) may be used with the towed vehicle (the tow dolly and the motor home would be considered one vehicle). Additionalyy, the maximum length for a combination of vehicles consisting of a motor home and towed vehicle is 65 feet (Section 35401 VC)."
These are the punitive sections and I was unaware of it NOT BEING a requirement to have a breakaway device. In civil court proceedings, I would imagine a lawsuit could probably persuade a driver to have that breakaway device and supplemental brakes on the "toad". I hope this info helps you in some way. Sam
I received a response the California Highway Patrol in Sacramento, CA. It was from a Captain, who is the Commander of their Commercial Vehicle Section. I quote from his response: "California law does not require brakes on towed motor vehicles to be operated from the motor home provided the combination of vehicles meet the stopping requirements of Section 26454 of the Vehicle Code (VC). Section 26454 VC states in part, the service brakes of every motor vehicle or combination of vehicles shall be adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold such vehicle or combination of vehicles under all conditions of loading on any grade on which it is operated. Provided your motorhome is assigned a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more, your combination would be required to come to a complete stop within 50 feet from an initial speed of 20 miles per hour. Additionally, an emergency device is not required. "
"Section 21715 VC restricts a passenger vehicle (Motor Home) from towing more that one vehicle in cobination, except a tow dolly (car dolly) may be used with the towed vehicle (the tow dolly and the motor home would be considered one vehicle). Additionalyy, the maximum length for a combination of vehicles consisting of a motor home and towed vehicle is 65 feet (Section 35401 VC)."
These are the punitive sections and I was unaware of it NOT BEING a requirement to have a breakaway device. In civil court proceedings, I would imagine a lawsuit could probably persuade a driver to have that breakaway device and supplemental brakes on the "toad". I hope this info helps you in some way. Sam
OP
OP
Buddy Tott
Well-known member
Sam,
Grateful thanks for taking the time to contact CHP and for posting the response. The information does help. Though I use a Brake Buddy, should it become defective in some way, while in use, then the obvious answer is to remove it for repair. It may not be practical to 'hole-up' while the repairs are effected and would likely continue on carefully, until the repaired unit can be re-installed safely. It is under those circumstances, and true to Murphy's Law, that my MH might be subjected to examination by law enforcement. Extremely unlikely, I know, but...It will be helpful to have your post in writing and on hand, should a dispute arise. I am more concerned about local police than CHP, who often do not have the broad range of traffic law and knowledge that a CHP officer generally has. I certainly would not want to have to go to the trouble of defending a citation in an out of the way jurisdiction, if it can be resolved at the side of the road, so to speak, and before any such citation is issued.
Furthermore, I am also interested in pursuing the seemingly inaccurate and false statements by suppplemental braking system manufacturers, who often claim that supplemental brakes on toads are mandatory in California and possibly other States. Certainly civil liability potentially exists in using a toad without a supplemental braking system (should an accident occur), however, that liability is greatly dimished if its installation is not mandatory nor legally required (in CA).
The CHP Captain confirmed my own beliefs regarding this issue and I thank you again for posting the response.
As a side issue, but related. I have a tow/haul feature installed on my Ford E450 and I recently come up and over the I-5 Grapvine, with my toad. I barely used my brakes at all, and the tow/haul feature of the transmission kept my downhill speed to 55 mph or less, from Gorman to Castaic - another reason (for me) in keeping the weight of the toad to a respectable minimum (2300lbs).
BT
Grateful thanks for taking the time to contact CHP and for posting the response. The information does help. Though I use a Brake Buddy, should it become defective in some way, while in use, then the obvious answer is to remove it for repair. It may not be practical to 'hole-up' while the repairs are effected and would likely continue on carefully, until the repaired unit can be re-installed safely. It is under those circumstances, and true to Murphy's Law, that my MH might be subjected to examination by law enforcement. Extremely unlikely, I know, but...It will be helpful to have your post in writing and on hand, should a dispute arise. I am more concerned about local police than CHP, who often do not have the broad range of traffic law and knowledge that a CHP officer generally has. I certainly would not want to have to go to the trouble of defending a citation in an out of the way jurisdiction, if it can be resolved at the side of the road, so to speak, and before any such citation is issued.
Furthermore, I am also interested in pursuing the seemingly inaccurate and false statements by suppplemental braking system manufacturers, who often claim that supplemental brakes on toads are mandatory in California and possibly other States. Certainly civil liability potentially exists in using a toad without a supplemental braking system (should an accident occur), however, that liability is greatly dimished if its installation is not mandatory nor legally required (in CA).
The CHP Captain confirmed my own beliefs regarding this issue and I thank you again for posting the response.
As a side issue, but related. I have a tow/haul feature installed on my Ford E450 and I recently come up and over the I-5 Grapvine, with my toad. I barely used my brakes at all, and the tow/haul feature of the transmission kept my downhill speed to 55 mph or less, from Gorman to Castaic - another reason (for me) in keeping the weight of the toad to a respectable minimum (2300lbs).
BT
OP
OP
Buddy Tott
Well-known member
Ned
I understand that. However, for that section (26454 CVC) to be enforced there would have to be a 'physical test' of the vehicle by a law enforcement official - to prove or show that that braking system was not compliant (It is one of the many sections where law enforcement must show that it does not work, rather than the driver proving that it does). I doubt few local officers, or many CHP for that matter, would engage in a test on the roadside. The potential liability of a failure would be too great. Possibly the vehicle could be 'seized' and/or impounded for a test to be done by CHP under a controlled environment, but is unlikely if that is the only issue in an otherwise roadworthy and legal vehicle.
In any event, even with a supplemental braking system installed, there are still no guarantees that the MH and toad or any vehicle for that matter, would stop within the required speed/distance (as required by 26454VC). As we all know, there is a vast difference between the various degrees of braking - from a simple 'feather' or cautionary touch of the pedal to a full-blown emergency stop. There are so many variables, from the condition of the brakes themselves, the worthiness and 'correct setting' of the (supplemental) braking system, road surface, prevailing traffic and weather conditions, load, and driver awareness, which will make all the difference during braking, regardless of whether a supplemental braking system is installed. I am in no way downplaying the need for Supplemental Brakes. They are a necessary and precautionary measure when towing, but the bottom line is that they are still not mandatory for a toad in CA, under CA Veh. code. And, 26454VC - as it applies to stopping distances - is difficult at best, to enforce.
I am sure thare are many MHs on the road loaded to capacity, towing heavy vehicles, with a supplemental braking system installed but which would still not comply to the stopping distance formula. Proving that, however, is a whole 'nother ball 'o wax.
BT
I understand that. However, for that section (26454 CVC) to be enforced there would have to be a 'physical test' of the vehicle by a law enforcement official - to prove or show that that braking system was not compliant (It is one of the many sections where law enforcement must show that it does not work, rather than the driver proving that it does). I doubt few local officers, or many CHP for that matter, would engage in a test on the roadside. The potential liability of a failure would be too great. Possibly the vehicle could be 'seized' and/or impounded for a test to be done by CHP under a controlled environment, but is unlikely if that is the only issue in an otherwise roadworthy and legal vehicle.
In any event, even with a supplemental braking system installed, there are still no guarantees that the MH and toad or any vehicle for that matter, would stop within the required speed/distance (as required by 26454VC). As we all know, there is a vast difference between the various degrees of braking - from a simple 'feather' or cautionary touch of the pedal to a full-blown emergency stop. There are so many variables, from the condition of the brakes themselves, the worthiness and 'correct setting' of the (supplemental) braking system, road surface, prevailing traffic and weather conditions, load, and driver awareness, which will make all the difference during braking, regardless of whether a supplemental braking system is installed. I am in no way downplaying the need for Supplemental Brakes. They are a necessary and precautionary measure when towing, but the bottom line is that they are still not mandatory for a toad in CA, under CA Veh. code. And, 26454VC - as it applies to stopping distances - is difficult at best, to enforce.
I am sure thare are many MHs on the road loaded to capacity, towing heavy vehicles, with a supplemental braking system installed but which would still not comply to the stopping distance formula. Proving that, however, is a whole 'nother ball 'o wax.
BT
Gary RV_Wizard
Site Team
I agree with your analysis, Buddy. No officer is going to administer an ad hoc braking test at the roadside, or even in a rest area or truck weigh station. After the fact in an accident investigation, maybe, but not as a proactive measure in a routine traffic stop.
Ron
Moderator Emeritus
RV Roamer said:
I wouldn't be too sure of that. I understand one of the provedences in Canada has been known to do just that.
OP
OP
Buddy Tott
Well-known member
Ron
My premise for this thread is CA requirements only. Though I suspect other States may have similar regulation(s) and Canadian laws, are an entirely different issue.
Roamer, even after an accident - assuming such a speed/distance test was given, it would be too difficult to prove that the braking (system) was inedequate immediately prior to and was the proximate cause of the collision. Under those circumstances, the officer would likely cite under a mechanically defective or improperly maintained brake regulation (e.g. 26453VC) and the defect was clearly visible, e.g. pads worn down with metal to metal etc, or any number of other 'driver' violations - excessive speed for prevailing road conditions or exceeding the posted speed limit being the favorites and easiest to prove in accident investigation/reconstruction.
If an accident resulted in death or serious injury and the driver of a MH and toad were considered the cause, road tests might be performed but even then 26454VC, is unlikely to be the 'citing' violation. It is simply impossible to recreate the moments prior to the incident with reasonable certainty to use that specific charge. However any information gleaned from the tests might be used to establish more serious charges (Vehicular homicide etc.) and used in any Civil suit. 26454VC and other related violations would likely be considered a lesser and included offense.
BT
My premise for this thread is CA requirements only. Though I suspect other States may have similar regulation(s) and Canadian laws, are an entirely different issue.
Roamer, even after an accident - assuming such a speed/distance test was given, it would be too difficult to prove that the braking (system) was inedequate immediately prior to and was the proximate cause of the collision. Under those circumstances, the officer would likely cite under a mechanically defective or improperly maintained brake regulation (e.g. 26453VC) and the defect was clearly visible, e.g. pads worn down with metal to metal etc, or any number of other 'driver' violations - excessive speed for prevailing road conditions or exceeding the posted speed limit being the favorites and easiest to prove in accident investigation/reconstruction.
If an accident resulted in death or serious injury and the driver of a MH and toad were considered the cause, road tests might be performed but even then 26454VC, is unlikely to be the 'citing' violation. It is simply impossible to recreate the moments prior to the incident with reasonable certainty to use that specific charge. However any information gleaned from the tests might be used to establish more serious charges (Vehicular homicide etc.) and used in any Civil suit. 26454VC and other related violations would likely be considered a lesser and included offense.
BT
Ron
Moderator Emeritus
It is common knowledge that the braking system on Motorhomes are only designed to stop the MH at its Maximum GVWR. If an officer investigating an accident notes the accident may not have happened if the MH had been able to stop sooner but was pulling a toad without aux braking I sure wouldn't want to have been the driver of the MH.
OP
OP
Buddy Tott
Well-known member
Ron
Being able to "...stop sooner" is a condition of excessive speed not necessarily inadequate braking ability. If an accident is caused by any vehicle, towing or otherwise, speed is generally the overiding factor. Unless, of course, a road sign, traffic light or other mandatory driving directive is violated. Even then, e.g. if any vehicle blows through a red light and crashes, the speed of the offending vehicle is also a causational factor, not just the precursory red light violation. However, a driving under the influence is considered 'presumptive' in that the DUI is the cause of the accident with other violations (speed, red light etc) as associated factors.
I'm not suggesting the offending driver may not be held accountable, it's just that failure to have a supplemental braking system installed while towing (if one wasn't), in CA, would not be one of the violations cited, neither would the speed/distance infraction.
BT
Being able to "...stop sooner" is a condition of excessive speed not necessarily inadequate braking ability. If an accident is caused by any vehicle, towing or otherwise, speed is generally the overiding factor. Unless, of course, a road sign, traffic light or other mandatory driving directive is violated. Even then, e.g. if any vehicle blows through a red light and crashes, the speed of the offending vehicle is also a causational factor, not just the precursory red light violation. However, a driving under the influence is considered 'presumptive' in that the DUI is the cause of the accident with other violations (speed, red light etc) as associated factors.
I'm not suggesting the offending driver may not be held accountable, it's just that failure to have a supplemental braking system installed while towing (if one wasn't), in CA, would not be one of the violations cited, neither would the speed/distance infraction.
BT
