Message Forums

• Yet you at least strongly imply that the secondary coupling must prevent separation in the event of the towball failing.
  answer
  Yes this is also correct There is no other reason for a second coupling. Should the first coupling fail the second coupling as to keep the trailer attached until brought to a stop.
  Response
  The law requires all unbraked trailers manufactured after 1996 be fitted with a secondary coupling that prevents the drawbar from touching the ground and provides some residual steering in the event of separation of the main coupling. DfT have kindly provided a publication that explains the intent (which is what a court will consider). You can read it here but the salient bit says:
  "Brakes
  Braking requirements are prescribed in Regulations 15 and 16 of The Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 as amended and essentially require a trailer with a maximum design laden weight of more 750 kg to be braked and allow an inertia (overrun) type braking system to be used up to a maximum permissible laden weight of 3500kg. In use it is not permitted to use an unbraked trailer the laden weight of which exceeds 50% of the kerbside weight of the towing vehicle. For trailers up to 1500kg laden weight it is permitted to use a secondary coupling, which in the event of separation (NOT failure) of the main coupling will retain the trailer attached to the towing vehicle, prevent the nose of the trailer from touching the ground and provide some residual steering of the trailer. Above 1500 kg laden weight the trailer must be fitted with a device to stop the trailer automatically in the event of separation (NOT failure) of the main coupling and this is normally achieved by a breakaway cable attached to the parking brake mechanism - the trailer becomes detached from the towing vehicle." (my emphasis).
  
  You say there is no other reason for a second coupling other than to ensure safety in the event of failure. Yet the law implies, and DfT explictly states, that the reason why a secondary coupling is required has nothing to do with failure of the main coupling. Instead, it is to do with the separation that might occur (e.g.) should you fail to hitch up properly, or use a 50mm hitch head with a 2" towball.
  


• I believe that you are misrepresenting the law when you say that using a chain doesn't comply.
  answer.
  The word comply is not appropriate as the law dose not stipulate what to use, The ministry of transport did not recommend the chain over ball at they deemed this unsafe.
  Response
  It was Mat, not me, that used the word comply. While the law doesn't state how it is to be achieved it is very clear on what is to be achieved. If the Ministry deemed all installations of coupling chain over ball to be unsafe without sight of every example, they are exceeding their authority and this is another example of the sort of thing that prompted me to make my first post in this thread.
  
  The man from the Ministry does not know, and cannot know, the exact circumstances of every example of this type of secondary coupling that is or ever will be and so cannot say for sure that every example does not comply.


• AFAICT the law is clear enough in the case of those small trailers that come with a chain already fitted. The manufacturer must make his goods fit for their intended purpose, which means that the secondary coupling must meet the requirements of SI 1996/3033 etc. The user, who is not an expert in the matter, is entitled to rely on the implied fitness for that purpose
  answer.
  The ministry do not lay down what is fit or unfit to be fitted to a trailer that comes under currant regulations.
  so were dose the manufacturer get his information from.
  Response
  The manufacturer gets his information from the law, or from standards created to ensure compliance with the law. The law places many constraints on how products must be designed. For example, electrical and mechanical goods must comply with the appropriate safety legislation, and the design of trailers is constrained by the Construction and Use Regulations.
  
  So the manufacturer has a set of criteria that his product must meet to be lawfully used for the purpose for which he sells that product. For example, for trailers intended to be towed by class M1 vehicles, the trailer must be no wider than 2.3m, no longer than 7.0m excluding the drawbar, and must have lights that conform to the C&U regs. If the trailer doesn't meet these requirements it is unfit for purpose as defined by the Sale of Goods Act and may not lawfully be sold to consumers for that purpose.
  
  One of the criteria that an unbraked trailer produced after 1996 must meet is that it must be fitted with a secondary coupling that in the event of separation of the main coupling prevents the drawbar from touching the ground and provides some residual steering. If the manufacture fits a secondary coupling (which Erde et al. do) then it must meet this requirement. If it does not, the trailer is unfit for purpose and may not be sold to consumers. So there is an implied fitness for purpose upon which the purchaser is entitled to rely as evidence that the coupling complies with the law.

geoff

freedom to express is a good thing but, yawn, you are now starting to bore and irritate..

please go and find another topic to highjack and vent off on.

you have sadly clouded our intent on this one.

it is nothing personal but common sense and best practice is what we are trying to get across, to promote a safe travel to your holiday destination.

my input on his topic is now done

mat

Quote: Originally posted by rexgrant on 29/2/2008

---

so really Geoff I cannot see what you are trying to get across.

---

Ok for the lay man,

This is what I have done, bought a new trailer for this camping year, an Erde193 this comes with the hitch chain which goes over the tow ball, I have also fitted a secondary hitch bracket to the back of my towball plate through one of the fixing bolts, new bolt fitted, and bought a short steel secondary cable.

So in summary the best of both worlds, for about £5.00

Victor