Do you really need braking on a TOAD?

[16ACE27]

You guys are pissing up a rope. Nothing you say will change Harley's mind. I've already pointed out that certain vehicles are designed by the manufacturer to be towed 4 down with specific instructions. He doesn't buy it. I pointed out that physically there is no difference on the towing vehicle between the effect of pulling a trailer and pulling a toad when you need to brake. He wants to see that written in a statute somewhere instead of the laws of physics.

Harley and Ducksface just need to go into a corner and argue themselves blue in the face.

[Pete'sMH]

Originally Posted by Harley97

As people list states I do look up the laws, so far I have not found one state that requires brakes.



I agree with the weight and braking system part. I have said that multiple times here. Slowing down and adding more distance is just as effective at avoiding accidents.

How the hell do you slow down enough to prevent a deer from jumping out in front of you or an inattentive oncoming driver from swerving into your lane?

[Pete'sMH]

Originally Posted by 16ACE27

You guys are pissing up a rope. Nothing you say will change Harley's mind. I've already pointed out that certain vehicles are designed by the manufacturer to be towed 4 down with specific instructions. He doesn't buy it. I pointed out that physically there is no difference on the towing vehicle between the effect of pulling a trailer and pulling a toad when you need to brake. He wants to see that written in a statute somewhere instead of the laws of physics.



Harley and Ducksface just need to go into a corner and argue themselves blue in the face.

You are totally correct; if the vehicle’s owners manual provides instructions on how to recreationally tow your car then it clearly was designed, equipped and intended to be towed. I’m done with this thread.

[Bob Denman]

Can we close this thread now?

[pstandiford]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

Can we close this thread now?

I agree Bob. I have not seen anyone on this thread state that they are an attorney. Laws are deliberately written in ambiguous legalese so that courts can interpret it to fit unforeseen circumstances. It is obvious, given the differing opinions on what constitutes a TOAD based on California's law, that we are not going to come to a consensus. No sense in carrying this any further. I'm following Pete. I'm done with this thread.