Towing Legislation

[Jim W]

I have been on the side lines on this issue and have been reading all of these post and there comments.

I tend to agree with H. Barlow and feel we do not need any more laws telling us what we can and can not do.

Case in point; is the Illinois fire arms owner card requirement. This law was in-acted to prevent illegally gun use and to allow for greater gun control by law enforcement. The only people allow to buy guns and ammo were the law abiding people carrying the card. The only problem is that the only ones following the rules are the honest people and the rest do not care.

So going back to having a special driver's training or licensing for the government to allow us to pull a trailer only the honest ones will abide. As for the rest this is just like the insurance requirement and drivers licensing issues that have been debated here.



"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. " -- John Adams



Just my $0. 02

 

[Mark31]

I have enjoyed reading this discussion and can't resist wanting to get in 2 cents worth. I, too, believe in personal responsibility, but sometimes it needs to be encouraged. Could the RV industry and/or insurance companies come up with training seminars/films that must be attended/viewed before sales/coverage are confirmed? I doubt it. That leaves the gubment. If only a small amount of wrecks/pain-suffering/deaths are eliminated because of PROPER/relative required training/licensing, then it is worth the $100 it may cost, especially if it is you or your loved ones that are spared the hurt. Mark

 

[RVTRKN]

Pavemen, nothing personal, but if there were many accidents when pulling trailers, you can bet the politicians would change the laws if they thought they would get more votes or their was a public outcry. But there are not that many deaths related to trailers, that has not already been addressed by some law or another. Yes I used the gun laws as an analogy, but it fits the legislation creep that your suggesting, that has happened to gun laws. Read your drivers handbook, it is covered under a class C lic. You can bet that if some very rich person kills someone doing just what you fear, they will be sued and the plaintiffs attorney will site it in the drivers handbook that he did not follow the rules therefore its his liability and he must be punished. But if he tries to sue the State, the state will refer them to the drivers handbook.





Were splitting hairs here and this has turned into a stagnant argument. When you leave your private property you assume a known risk that someone with an auto can at anytime cause you harm.





When I bought my first boat I took a voluntary class because I needed to know my family would be safe and I could also recognize other dangers that I should be aware of. But I will not boat on Lake Havasu during the summer months, because of the spoiled kids who have been given a boat for the first time without the proper knowledge, and they do kill people . Do I now need to take a mandatory boat test, or go spend $2000 extra dollars on an approved boating coarse to include a test on the water.



Personal responsibility is all of our responsibility, If anyone should be to blame it is the parents of the grown adults that ignored their responsibility to teach their kids personal responsibility.

 

[AClayton]

A test is a test!!It won't help anything!!If it is a hurdle for a new RV buyer to simply take a test and achieve some sort of document that states he has passed a written examination,then said buyer will study... . read his book and pass a test. What I'm trying to say is;A hurdle between purchasing your RV and taking some test will do nothing because the primary focus is to get beyond the hurdle..... not to learn!!This document means absolutely nothing on the highway!It takes experience and the personal responsibility to want to gain experience behind the wheel of a large RV. Govt. intervention will do nothing more than ADD another expense to our lifestyle that we will have to suck up in order for us to continue.



Besides,let's face it... . some people test well but don't retain information and others have a good knowledge of whatever they're studying but don't test well. It would be the person that test's well that will have the problem. I am generalizing here I know,but this has been my experience as a whole.



Alan

 

[surfbeetle]

Yes, this argument is getting stagnant, we understand everyone's perspective. One thing I can say is that a wise man can learn from the mistakes of others which is why we are all on this forum in the first place. We have all gained the knowledge and wisdom from other members' successes and mistakes. Whether it's the VP44, the KDP, Trailer tires from China, Fram Oil Filters, or various aspects of RVing, we have all benefited from the information here.



Learning how to properly drive, handle and maintain an RV is just something else we can all benefit from. For me, it was legislated, I drove buses and had to get a commercial license. It just so happens that I was trained professionally to drive larger vehicles.



So whether it's legislated or not, it really is in everyone's best interests to be open minded and get educated on whatever new tool/gun/vehicle combination/etc that you plan to operate. Don't ever assume that you know everything about everything, life doesn't work that way.

 

[Pavemen]

Nothing personal taken at all. These kinds of discussions are fun and let me see how people really are. Many times, a person is posting his/her beliefs 'says' something that contradicts themselves without even realizing it.

I have seen many times in this thread that existing laws are okay, but nothing new should be made without any comment on how bad the existing laws are. There was a call for better enforcement of those existing laws, usually without considering how ineffective they are to begin with.

Some folks seem to be okay with Class A testing and licensing but not testing and endorsements for those situations in between typical Class C and a Class A. Why is that? Is it becuase they already have the Class A and feel that they don't need to care about those of us in between (focus is on CA where the towing laws are stricter than Fed rules), or is it that they do not want those of us that have no need for a full Class A with hazmat, doubles, air brakes, etc, to "lower" the prestige of having a Class A? I do not know what the reasoning is, but it appears a bit hypocritical.

If a "test is a test", then you must be okay with having no licensing or training required for operating any motor vehicle on any road. Its all or nothing, you can't pick and choose becuase it benefits your RV/bus driving/tractor-trailer lifestyle.

As for personal responsibility, most folks seem to lack it in this world. Yes, it my responsibility to understand the risks in an activity (like boating on Havasu in the summer) however, why should my opportunities for fun be spoiled by the uneducated when simple and inexpensive testing for those types of things can be made available.

Again, it won't force people to obey the rules/law, but they at least understand the issues and rules (or will have been exposed to them even if they retain little)

BTW, a centrist is simply a moderate that does not fit in the typical liberal or conservative bucket. I do not flip-flop on issues based on public opinion. How can I want more money for education (or at least better mgmt of it) and be pro-choice and be okay with gay rights (not gay myself, but I have a "I do not care how you live your life" mentality as it does not effect me at all) but be pro-death penalty, pro-gun and pro-capitalism/business? It's not flip-flipping, its being realistic about my views and not constraining myself to the two main sides. I am not 100% libertarian becuase I do not believe in everything that party does.

We should probably have this thread moved to off-topic/politics and the subject updated.

To each his own, I hold no grudges or make any judgments.

 

[Loren]

A test is a test!!It won't help anything!!If it is a hurdle for a new RV buyer to simply take a test and achieve some sort of document that states he has passed a written examination,then said buyer will study... . read his book and pass a test. What I'm trying to say is;A hurdle between purchasing your RV and taking some test will do nothing because the primary focus is to get beyond the hurdle..... not to learn!!This document means absolutely nothing on the highway!It takes experience and the personal responsibility to want to gain experience behind the wheel of a large RV. Govt. intervention will do nothing more than ADD another expense to our lifestyle that we will have to suck up in order for us to continue.



Besides,let's face it... . some people test well but don't retain information and others have a good knowledge of whatever they're studying but don't test well. It would be the person that test's well that will have the problem. I am generalizing here I know,but this has been my experience as a whole.



Alan

To bring this thread back to the subject, let me mention something that hasn’t turned up yet. As AClayton says, a test would just be another hurdle. A bureaucratic hurdle at that.



The issue is that if the government made the test difficult enough to actually weed out the poor RV drivers, so many people would flunk that there would be an uprising. The result would be that any test would be almost meaningless, because it would be so easy to pass. Therefore, it would not remove the poor drivers from the road.



Compare that to a test for a pilot’s license. Lots of people would like to fly airplanes, but many can’t pass the test. That’s because a pilot licensing exam is mostly emergency procedures, and the examiner judges whether the potential pilot handles them well enough. Do you think that an RV driving exam would include emergency maneuvers or panic stops? We don’t have to do that even to get a regular driver’s license.



So, a meaningless test would be, as AClayton says, just another bureaucratic hoop to jump through before someone can take his RV on the road.



For me, however, the bottom line is: I don’t want any more government interference in anything. I am maxed out.

 

[Scottyg1]

NO... ... period, enough with the government. I have not seen one instance where the government getting involved in anything has resulted in the betterment of citizens. (Not lately anyway) Well maybe except WWII.

Agree keep big brother away. While I would not have an issue with some form of safety course, no way on any mandantory government intervention. When has big brother ever just done anything without over doing it????

 

[DaveHess]

This has been a very interesting thread to read and an issue that can have far reaching implications to us Rv'ers and trailer toters. As I read these, and forgive me if I am merely re-stating the obvious, is we cannot legislate or test for common-sense and personal responsibilty. These two things to me are the cornerstones for safe motoring on our public highways. Mr. Barlow and I conversed on this subject once on a stupid act I performed while going over a pass in MT. I placed myself and family and the motorists around at risk to prove a point to a couple of D-Max operators. Stupid, stupid, stupid. What did I learn? Use common-sense and decide what is the smart thing to do taking everyone around me into consideration. They are all innocents. My fix was since that time I do not tow over 65MPH now which by the way I read somewhere (I believe trailer life) that trailer tires are only rated at 65MPH. I know that story is a bit off topic but the point being I took personal responsibility for that action and vowed to be a better operator for my family and those around me whether or not they choose to do so them selves. I cannot control them nor do I wish my government to do it for me. One person at a time if you will. In my mind the only government involvement I want in my life is the defense of this wonderful country that I so freely wander. And to justify that freedom I sacrificed 20+ years of my life in service to the USAF in the belief everyone should also do so in their means. So when I see an older American citizen motoring down the Interstate in his million dollar Monarch motorhome, I don't feel "it is not right", more "good for him". Not sure where I was going with that thought... ...



Anyhow, my bride tells me I am so far to the right that one of these days I am going to fall off the edge. So Mr. Barlow when you are ready to build that wall, let me know I'll bring my flatbed and CTD to help. (I'll leave my bride at home though..... )

 

[HBarlow]

Now that the original argument over the idea of mandatory training/testing for trailer towing has subsided somewhat allow me to toss a cup of gasoline on the fire... .....

How about the hundreds even thousands of college students or yuppies who are moving from city to city using a rented U-Haul trailer hung on the back of their subcompact or compact SUV?

I have no statistics to back this premise but I'd be willing to bet far more of them end up upside down or detached and veering across traffic lanes or into the ditches than big fifth wheels towed by pickups.

Should anyone who wants to pull a trailer be required to complete training and testing?

My premise is intentionally ridiculous (from my perspective) but it illustrates the problem. When we citizens allow government to get its nose under the tent and regulate one tiny little legitimate aspect of our lives it never ends there. It always continues to expand its control over our lives.

I prefer to take my risks that some one will go out and buy and tow a trailer he/she isn't capable of safely handling rather than allow government to create a new requirement to regulate what is basically a small or non-existent threat.

 

[Loren]

When we citizens allow government to get its nose under the tent and regulate one tiny little legitimate aspect of our lives it never ends there. It always continues to expand its control over our lives.

Amen to that!

 

[surfbeetle]

Harvey, I agree with you 100%.



Here's what I don't agree with- an acquaintance of mine rented a tractor on a trailer and towed it with his 3/4 ton chevy or ford, (can't remember what he had) while going down the freeway, he had an accident where the truck and trailer with the tractor jack knifed and flipped. The cab of the truck got crushed and this person had some injuries.



Turns out, the trailer had a couple of the four tires that were flat and if I remember correctly, the brakes didn't work properly. So now he has sued and won his case against the rental agency, for big $$ & has a new f250.



My point is that because of my training and commercial license, I would have done a pre-trip and inspected the trailer's condition prior to leaving. I would not have blindly accepted the rental company's word on the condition and driven off since it is MY responsibility to be safe and legal with whatever it is that I drive/tow.

 

[KFranco]

Wow! When I started this post I had no idea it would amount to this much dialogue. I hadn't really formed a strong opinion about the subject. It was really a new awareness I had from a previous post. Thanks to the many responses and after some thought about the subject I have to conclude that legislation would be useless in this case. While I believe that fundamentally the idea has merit, realistically the idea falls short of the accomplished goal. There would probably be too much paper study to pass an exam and less emphasis on road study or real world experience. For example, I remember when after a series of right turn signals on the highway to switch lanes from the left to the right I was constantly being passed on the right and no one would let me in. I was going up a grade and hate blocking the fast lane. Once I got over I stopped at the next rest area thinking that my turn signal must be out. Sure enough it was. Instead of thinking all those people in the cars are jerks I assumed there was something wrong with me. My point is no legislation can teach you this. Only real world experience and taking responsibility for your rig... and dare I say assuming you might be at fault on the road sometimes.



Again, thank you all for your input. Not to go totally anti-government here but I can only wonder what the founder fathers would think of our government now. It was Thomas Jefferson, I believe, who said, "Sad is the day when the people fear the government and not the government fearing the people. "

 

[HBarlow]

Harvey, I agree with you 100%.

Here's what I don't agree with- an acquaintance of mine rented a tractor on a trailer and towed it with his 3/4 ton chevy or ford, (can't remember what he had) while going down the freeway, he had an accident where the truck and trailer with the tractor jack knifed and flipped. The cab of the truck got crushed and this person had some injuries.

Turns out, the trailer had a couple of the four tires that were flat and if I remember correctly, the brakes didn't work properly. So now he has sued and won his case against the rental agency, for big $$ & has a new f250.

My point is that because of my training and commercial license, I would have done a pre-trip and inspected the trailer's condition prior to leaving. I would not have blindly accepted the rental company's word on the condition and driven off since it is MY responsibility to be safe and legal with whatever it is that I drive/tow.

... . and I also agree with you, Kevin. I would have done a pre-trip inspection, exactly as you would.

I strongly disapprove of what your acquaintance did and also disapprove of the ambulance chaser who took his case to court and the jury who awarded him damages. If the trailer was, in fact, in poor condition as reported, he could/should have simply declined to rent and tow it. Fault and liability for your friend's accident should have been split 50% to 50%, IMO. I would have declined to tow the trailer and I think you would have also. If I was dumb enough to accept and pull it and ran into trouble I would have accepted responsibility for the result.

But there's a minor point where we differ. I've only had a CDL Class A two years (on edit I guess I've had it three years) and only got it because I was working for an RV transport company at the time that moved a lot of heavy trailers that put my GCW over 26k and made me illegal.

I have pulled RV trailers since I bought my first in 1973 and pulled an occasional boat, enclosed cargo, or flatbed/car trailer before that. I always figured the condition of the hitch, tires, safety brake-away lanyard, lights, brakes, tires, wheel bearings, and tie downs are my responsibility. I bet you'd agree that you knew and did the same thing before you had commercial driver training and licensing.

Our commercial training and licensing is helpful but very few rules and regulations are necessary if we simply use our own common sense and take responsibility for our own actions.

Yes, there are many who don't and the numbers may be increasing but I'm not convinced that the actual numbers of trailer towing accidents causing injury or property damage nationwide create sufficient risk to warrant allowing a government I don't respect or trust to regulate trailer towing anymore than it already does.

If it were a perfect world or perfect nation we could just allow the folks who love regulation of every issue under the sun to move to CA, IL, NY, MA, or one of the other socialist states and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[AMink]

In the case of trailers, I think the seller has a responsibility to say, "Your truck cannot legally pull this trailer". Will this happen? No way. I specifically ask if my truck can pull a certain trailer. They say it's a Cummins, no problem. Then I ask if it can LEGALLY pull the trailer. That's where the stop in conversation starts.



Unfortunately, not everyone does their homework in most situations, let alone trailers and towing. Will more legislation and permits help? Doubt it. It's like the nooby bike rider who goes out and gets a Hayabusa and splatters himself at 200mph. He passed the motorcycle test on his Nighthawk 250, but didn't have the skills and experience to handle a bike with 170 horsepower. If someone goes in and gets tested to tow a trailer and passes pulling a 15' ATV trailer, then goes and gets a 40' triple axle toy hauler, is he ready? No way. Should you have to prove a progression from small to large, light to heavy, and step up through until you get to the size TT or 5er you really want? There are laws on the books to handle most situations as it is. We don't need more. Yes, some dumbarse can take you and yours out because he was stupid and had no training. Chances are, he'd be stupid with training, and you'd still be caught up in his mistake.

 

[GAmes]

In the case of trailers, I think the seller has a responsibility to say, "Your truck cannot legally pull this trailer". Will this happen? No way. I specifically ask if my truck can pull a certain trailer. They say it's a Cummins, no problem. Then I ask if it can LEGALLY pull the trailer. That's where the stop in conversation starts.

Please expand on this "LEGALLY" concept. What is it that you believe constitutes legal?



In the state my drivers license is issued the class C allows me to drive a vehicle with a GVWR up to 26,000 pounds or a combination with a GCWR up to 26,000. Since my 3500 has a GVWR of 10,500 I am allowed to pull a trailer with a GVWR up to 15,500, or my 5er/boat double up to the same weight. As I stated in another thread, if I continue to transport trailers and buy another Dodge it will be a 2500. With a GVWR of 9000 I can legally pull trailers up to 17,000 which will allow me to not have to turn down as much work.

 

[BEmmert]

No offense to those who hold a CDL, but for every 10, eighteen wheel tractor/trailer operators there are one of those drivers that should NOT have passed the CDL test and should not be on the road with a vehicle of that size. Have seen some really good truck drivers out there, but have seen some real bad ones as well. So I think this would be the same with an RV endorsement. Like stated before passing a test is one thing, truly knowing how to operate is another.

 

[AMink]

Please expand on this "LEGALLY" concept. What is it that you believe constitutes legal?



In the state my drivers license is issued the class C allows me to drive a vehicle with a GVWR up to 26,000 pounds or a combination with a GCWR up to 26,000. Since my 3500 has a GVWR of 10,500 I am allowed to pull a trailer with a GVWR up to 15,500, or my 5er/boat double up to the same weight. As I stated in another thread, if I continue to transport trailers and buy another Dodge it will be a 2500. With a GVWR of 9000 I can legally pull trailers up to 17,000 which will allow me to not have to turn down as much work.

I'm referring to when the dealer will willing sell a trailer to someone who's truck is NOT rated to pull something of the size they are looking at. In the case of a 5er, the tongue weight could be too much for the legal capacity of the truck. It's nit-picky, I know. But some of the older trucks (I had one) do not have the legal capacity of today's trucks. That's all I'm getting at. Some of the trailers today are huge!

 

[GAmes]

No offense to those who hold a CDL, but for every 10, eighteen wheel tractor/trailer operators there are one of those drivers that should NOT have passed the CDL test and should not be on the road with a vehicle of that size.

That's only 10%. Take a drive through the Salt Lake City area or the Los Angelos freeways. 40 to 60% of the 4 wheeler drivers should not have passed a standard drivers license test#@$%!

 

[GAmes]

I'm referring to when the dealer will willing sell a trailer to someone who's truck is NOT rated to pull something of the size they are looking at. In the case of a 5er, the tongue weight could be too much for the legal capacity of the truck.

As I guessed you have somehow attached a legality tag to a manufacturer's rating. As thousands of farmers, ranchers, hot shotters, car haulers, trailer transporters and yes, RVers will tell you that RATING has no legal standing. As long as the driver has the right license type and the vehicle is registered for the weights it is carrying/pulling as is the trailer, and the tires are not loaded beyond their ratings (and DOT does care about that), just about anything is legal as far as towing with pickups go.