Tow Cars

Gromit wrote:

steamdrivenandy wrote:

 In the case of A Frames there's nothing that specifically makes them illegal and nothing that specifically makes them legal. Therefore by default they are legal, unless and until something happens to alter that, one way or the other.

That's where the logic of that argument eludes me.

If there's nothing that specifically makes them legal, how can they actually be legal??

They are clearly not illegal, but surely that does not automatically make them legal until they are entered into the statutes as such??

Dave

The basis of our law is that if something isn't illegal then it's automatically legal. I guess a comparison might be that we can walk down a street, as long as there are no restrictions on it, but there isn't a law to say we can. Basically we can do stuff as long as it's not been declared illegal. That's why sometimes people get away with new 'crimes' because there's no specific law against it.

It is not whether the A frame is legal or not. It is whether the assembly of a car being towed via an A Frame is legal. Does it satisfy the lighting requirements, easily accomplished. Does it satisfy the minimum braking efficiency required by the C & U Regulations, the real crunch without the servo assistance normally available. Fitting of a sub-system to replicate the servo assistance removes this doubt. Simple overrun activation of the unassisted brake pedal may not be enough. There is also the requirement to prevent an overrun system activating brakes whilst reversing, trickier to achieve.

My decision was that the cost of ensuring a A Framed tow was legal, together with potential negation of warranty, by modification of electrics, brakes and body crash systems, was not worth the trouble, so I went for a trailer. I can also use this in Europe without worry.

Each person must make their own decision.

There no set I stone requirements for servo assistance on braking. 

Reversing is catered for by a resistive gas ram that allows us to push the towed car back. We have to go slowly when doing this but I would be anyway. General concensus is to avoid reversing situations where possible again I would do that anyway. 

Lighting requirements are met with ease and better than a trailer or caravan. 

I don't have anywhere to store a trailer . Even if I did I prefer the simplicity of a frame. 

On the IQ the pedestrian bump kit is reinstalled in front of the framework . The frame is stronger than the usual heavy bump bar it replaces. 

Toyota are happy with the fitment and it does not affect the vehicle warranty any more than fitting towing equipment to the rear of the vehicle. 

Insurance is happy. Comfort insurance have a dedicated section in the policy document towing by A frame. 

Unfortunately for us the choices were few. I'm happy I have done everything I can to cover my backside. 

I don't see what I can do in addition to what has been done so far.

steamdrivenandy wrote:

Basically we can do stuff as long as it's not been declared illegal.

What about riding a motorbike without a helmet then Andy?

That has been declared illegal, but Sikhs don't have to wear one.

The "default" is illegal. They can ride without a helmet only because it has been declared legal to do so in their specific case.

I know it doesn't make an atom of difference in most cases (good discussion topic though ) but it's this opposing perspective from which some regulations are viewed that leads to all the (mis)interpretations. Like the "We believe" that the DoT repeatedly says in relation to A-Frame legislation!

Enough said on this topic I think. You know I'm right so the beers are on you next time we meet!

Dave

Charliefarlie wrote:There no set I stone requirements for servo assistance on braking. 

I'm happy I have done everything I can to cover my backside. 

I don't see what I can do in addition to what has been done so far.

Hi Charlie

This is how I understand it, but I'm not the Pope so please would someone correct any errors.

The mention of servo assistance is irrelevant. The regulations define the required braking efficiency, but make no stipulation about how this should be achieved. If they did there would be no room for innovation. If someone invented a new braking system it would be illegal without a change in the law, since it was not one of the stipulated methods.

Over run braking cannot fully comply with the new regulations. When the car is driven to hitch the A-Frame onto the towball, the servo mechanism is evacuated. Therefore the first 2 or 3 (or maybe "few") times the over run system applies the brakes they will be servo assisted. After a short time the vacuum in the servo will have gone, so thereafter the brakes will be "dead pedal" operated - at much reduced efficiency. (Try applying the brakes on a slope first thing in the morning without switching on the engine. You need leg muscles like a Sumo wrestler!! )

If the mechanical linkage is adjusted to exert the considerable extra force needed to push hard enough on the dead pedal for fully efficient braking, the car would have immediately gone into a four wheel skid when the brakes were applied the first few times after hitching up.

I bought our A-Frame just before the latest regulations came into force, when there was considerable doubt about the outcome. It has a vacuum pump fitted to the car which maintains the servo vacuum, and is therefore about as legal as it's possible to get. I chose this option as the most likely to remain legal (or if you prefer, not illegal ) after the implementation of the new laws, as I clearly didn't want to spend cash on something that might be banned next month!!

Realistically I would be very surprised if anyone using an over run braking system is ever penalised, since (as has been said) proving a legal infraction in court would be far too costly and fraught with difficulty. However, I think the fact remains that they are technically illegal - even though the new legislation was neither aimed at nor concerned with A-Frames in the slightest. It was primarily aimed at the huge four wheel commercial trailers more common on the continent than in the UK.

Hope this is useful.

Dave


P.S. If you can reverse your toad more than 18 inches, you are a better man than me!

I thought I was agreeing with you.

Surely as far as Sikhs and helmets are concerned they have a dispensation in the relevant law that says they can wear a turban instead of a helmet and therefore the use of the turban has been formally declared as legal? If the legislation said helmets must be worn except by Sikhs full stop, then if they wore the turban instead it would be assuming they were legal. Surely therein lies the subtle difference.

steamdrivenandy wrote:Surely as far as Sikhs and helmets are concerned they have a dispensation in the relevant law that says they can wear a turban instead of a helmet and therefore the use of the turban has been formally declared as legal? If the legislation said helmets must be worn except by Sikhs full stop, then if they wore the turban instead it would be assuming they were legal. Surely therein lies the subtle difference.

Nice one Andy. Couldn't obfuscate better myself!!

The beers are still on you mate!

Dave

Right, now that is settled can I ask a question?

How does the weight of the towed arrangement affect the rated weight and your 3500kg licence?

I don't think it has any effect, so long as you remain within the maximum gross train weight as specified on your V5 or on your Vin plate.

Well worth checking to be sure however, since the weight of a trailer added to that of the car on top might prove to be too much. In that case an A-Frame might be the only realistic option?

Dave

I wasn't really sure what question to ask but to add some figures.

The Nuevo is listed as MIRO = 2824kg
my ealier (lighter) Smart      =  780kg
                                         3604kg
does that mean it is already too heavy for me to drive on my <3500kg licence before I even sit in it?

Can't be Dave. You've got the wrong figure I think.

This should help. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dave

Is it not the max GVW that would be taken into the equation ? Am I right in thinking a Nuevo is 3500 GVW ? Add to that the dry weight of the towed vehicle in the IQs case is 850 kg and we have 4350 kg. 

But as said above its the GTW that is applicable .

so whatever figure we use for the Nuevo, I can't tow anything anyway as it will exceed my licence.

Charliefarlie wrote:Am I right in thinking a Nuevo is 3500 GVW ?

Nearly right Charlie.

Most Nuevos have a GVW of 3300kg, which limits the user payload in some models.

Worth noting perhaps that if you get it "plated" up to 3500kg for extra payload, that means you can legally tow 200kg less than before it was plated.

Dave

dbroada wrote:so whatever figure we use for the Nuevo, I can't tow anything anyway as it will exceed my licence.

No David.

Look at the link I posted and find the correct figure on your Vin plate.

There won't be a problem.

Dave

and thanks to Dave's link I found this which confirms I can't effectively tow anything whether I get it plated up to 3500kg.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

• tow a trailer over 750kg MAM as long as the combined weight of the trailer and towing vehicle is no more than 3,500kg
  

You can check your driving license and towing weights allowed with it here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think, if you have a B license ie <3500kg GVW, you can tow trailer <750kg to max train 4250kg, or a heavier trailer provided train weight stays <3500kg. The link above will tell you definitively. Trailer weight within vehicle tow capacity of course.

dbroada wrote:and thanks to Dave's link I found this which confirms I can't effectively tow anything whether I get it plated up to 3500kg.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

• tow a trailer over 750kg MAM as long as the combined weight of the trailer and towing vehicle is no more than 3,500kg
  

No again Dave.

That applies only to those who passed their driving test after 19th January 2013.

Since you are 62 you will almost certainly hold "grandfather rights" to the conditions which applied when you passed your driving test, which is likely to be before 1st January 1997.

From that same link, "If you passed your car test before 1 January 1997 you are generally entitled to drive a vehicle and trailer combination up to 8.25 tonnes MAM."

Dave

yes, I certainly passed my test in the previous millennium but I have been on a three year medically restricted licence since then. I have a B+E licence.

It looks like I probably can tow.

Thanks all for clearing that up for me.

dbroada wrote: I have a B+E licence.

It looks like I probably can tow.

Thanks all for clearing that up for me.

Yes Dave - you can. Gov.UK says so, and they should know.

Category B+E

You can drive a vehicle with a MAM of 3,500kg with a trailer.
The size of the trailer depends on when you passed your test. If you passed your test:

• before 19 January 2013 you can tow any size trailer
  
• on or after 19 January 2013 you can tow a trailer with a MAM of up to 3,500kg
  

Source - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  (My emphasis in quote.)

Good news, eh?

Dave

Thank you all for the advice.

I don't actually want to tow right now but I had never seen it as an option before. Something to think about for the future.