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