yep seems like it would be a massive overreaction for something that apears to not be an issue.

I've personally witnessed six situations where a poorly loaded trailer has been the cause of the towing vehicle either mildly losing control, or the load has been lost due to instability.

These incidents weren't bad enough to warrant getting authorities involved, and therefore these are stats which would never be captured in reports. So just because something doesn't have stats to back it up, it doesn't mean that it never happens. 

Personally, I think trailer towing should be an endorsement for driver licences, covering basic aspects such as weight ratings (trailer & drawbar), tow ball sizing, load distribution, tie down techniques, and manouvering. The amount of dumb shit you see with incorrect loading & tie-downs is honestly apalling Some people have no idea at all what they're doing. The worst is the "she'll be right" bunch. Again, it's never bad enough to report on, but you just have to spend a while on the roads to see it. 

It's borderline insane how people can hire a trailer for a day and have zero clue how to load or drive the thing in a safe manner.

Mehrts:

 

So just because something doesn't have stats to back it up, it doesn't mean that it never happens.

 

In reality if something is happening frequently there will be stats to back it up. Basic OSH theory uses a Heinrichs triangle to describe this.

Essentially the idea is that if you (the numbers are just for example) 1 fatality you will have 10 serious accidents, 50 minor accidents, 100 near misses and 1000 unsafe acts. You may not be measuring the near misses or unsafe acts, or even all the accidents, but there will be statistics to back up something being a serious problem. If there aren't then it either needs further investigation or the hypotheis isn't correct.

One of the other tools used in industrial safety is the likelihood of the accident and the severity of the implications of the accident. You can't elminate every accident so you focus on ones that happen a lot and have severe implications.

The unsafe loading problem you described is connected but not the same as the brakes issue mentioned earlier. The implications and likelihood of acceptance are very different.

I think everyone would agree that the laws in this areas are a bit of a mess. I would like to see an evidence based approach to what should change.

Much as I would like better clarity and promotion of modern tech in recreational towing... I have to agree with this:

      > I think everyone would agree that the laws in this areas are a bit of a mess.
      > I would like to see an evidence based approach to what should change.

If the annual toll is indeed only 2 fatals (and the corresponding # of lesser incidents) - then we should indeed focus our limited time, money & effort on more rewarding problems.

I am very tired of the widely-prevalent 'road-cone' mentality - that any identifiable risk is worth a cost-no-object all-out effort to mitigate it. Lets go back to an evidence-based cost-of-life and cost-of-death risk analysis - so that we can afford to do good things instead of making them economically impossible in the name of complete safety. 

Handle9:

 

Mehrts:

 

So just because something doesn't have stats to back it up, it doesn't mean that it never happens.

 

 

In reality if something is happening frequently there will be stats to back it up. Basic OSH theory uses a Heinrichs triangle to describe this.

 

Essentially the idea is that if you (the numbers are just for example) 1 fatality you will have 10 serious accidents, 50 minor accidents, 100 near misses and 1000 unsafe acts. You may not be measuring the near misses or unsafe acts, or even all the accidents, but there will be statistics to back up something being a serious problem. If there aren't then it either needs further investigation or the hypotheis isn't correct.

 

One of the other tools used in industrial safety is the likelihood of the accident and the severity of the implications of the accident. You can't elminate every accident so you focus on ones that happen a lot and have severe implications.

 

The unsafe loading problem you described is connected but not the same as the brakes issue mentioned earlier. The implications and likelihood of acceptance are very different.

 

I think everyone would agree that the laws in this areas are a bit of a mess. I would like to see an evidence based approach to what should change.

 

total load of BS and you know it.

"nz doesn't have a domestic violence problem". for those who don't know the story thats what the police said. when they where finally pressured into actually looking, wow nz has one of the western worlds highest rates of domestic violence. (kinda relevant today as police put of domestic violence to patrol businesses, plenty of news articles of that if you want "proof") there is no stats because no one looks and because no one looks it also doesn't get reported.  so asking for stats where there is none is just being a petty knob to win an argument.

in typical political style, they won't do anything until a trailer wipes out a school bus full of children and makes head lines for weeks. then they will do some knee jerk reaction and make horrible law to please the know nothings.

pdh:

 

Much as I would like better clarity and promotion of modern tech in recreational towing... I have to agree with this:

 

      > I think everyone would agree that the laws in this areas are a bit of a mess.
      > I would like to see an evidence based approach to what should change.

 

If the annual toll is indeed only 2 fatals (and the corresponding # of lesser incidents) - then we should indeed focus our limited time, money & effort on more rewarding problems.

 

I am very tired of the widely-prevalent 'road-cone' mentality - that any identifiable risk is worth a cost-no-object all-out effort to mitigate it. Lets go back to an evidence-based cost-of-life and cost-of-death risk analysis - so that we can afford to do good things instead of making them economically impossible in the name of complete safety. 

 

i agree with this.

however because the fix will takes decades to do, if you wait until its a big noisy problem then your going to have a big problem for a long time as it takes so long to put the fix through, and people will be very resistant to the change. its a lot like people complaining about new insulation rules for homes, because they have gotten away with extremely low standards for such a long time, its seen as over reach. when in reality we are merely catching up to the rest of the world.

the simple problem is tech has changed massively. you have tow vehicles which can drive faster than before, and can stop quicker than the trailer can. add in that the drivers are changing from old people who know how to drive trailers, to those who expect trailers to behave like a car. add in the popularity of big caravans, which are increasingly more common, which are on the upper limits of the tow vehicles (which is what this thread is about). 

nz trailer rules are as basic as they get and nz trailers are illegal in many countries.

tweake:

nz trailer rules are as basic as they get and nz trailers are illegal in many countries.

Bung:

tweake:

 

nz trailer rules are as basic as they get and nz trailers are illegal in many countries.

Examples of which countries would be useful. I have noticed that some vehicles sold in the US have no manufacturer provision for towing and handbook just says "Not recommended" yet RHD versions sold in Aus & NZ have factory towbars and details in handbook on towing and allowable weights. The US doesn't appear to have a speed differential for towing vehicles and the vehicle manufacturers possibly want to avoid any liability.

assuie inertia brakes only up to 2000kg. For all trailers over 2000kg GTM, all wheels must have operational brakes (edit: to compare with nz we have no brakes up to 2000kg and allowed single axle brakes up to 2500kg, and dual axle brakes for over 3000kg)

uk, must have cable operated handbrake, not allowed hydraulic handbrakes as we have on most of our brake trailers. parts of Europe have different braking laws, plus some require shock absorbers on all trailer suspension. most of their inertia setups are hydraulic dampener (same with usa). spring operated ones, which are in 99% of nz inertia braking setups, are pretty rare in usa etc. also nz allows brakes only on one axle, a lot of overseas requires brakes on all axles or some its minimum of two.

nz trailers are over built to handle overloading (euro trailers are a lot lighter), which is encouraged by some manufacture's here. but braking is done a cheap as possible to cut costs. kiwis are all about the go and don't care about stopping, ie the feral "its illegal for you to stop in front of me" which results in about 30% of all accidents (and yes there is data on that).

edit: nz also has no requirement to have a towbar suitable for the trailer towed. 

tweake:

Handle9:

In reality if something is happening frequently there will be stats to back it up. Basic OSH theory uses a Heinrichs triangle to describe this.

Essentially the idea is that if you (the numbers are just for example) 1 fatality you will have 10 serious accidents, 50 minor accidents, 100 near misses and 1000 unsafe acts. You may not be measuring the near misses or unsafe acts, or even all the accidents, but there will be statistics to back up something being a serious problem. If there aren't then it either needs further investigation or the hypotheis isn't correct.

One of the other tools used in industrial safety is the likelihood of the accident and the severity of the implications of the accident. You can't elminate every accident so you focus on ones that happen a lot and have severe implications.

The unsafe loading problem you described is connected but not the same as the brakes issue mentioned earlier. The implications and likelihood of acceptance are very different.

I think everyone would agree that the laws in this areas are a bit of a mess. I would like to see an evidence based approach to what should change.

total load of BS and you know it.

"nz doesn't have a domestic violence problem". for those who don't know the story thats what the police said. when they where finally pressured into actually looking, wow nz has one of the western worlds highest rates of domestic violence. (kinda relevant today as police put of domestic violence to patrol businesses, plenty of news articles of that if you want "proof") there is no stats because no one looks and because no one looks it also doesn't get reported.  so asking for stats where there is none is just being a petty knob to win an argument.

in typical political style, they won't do anything until a trailer wipes out a school bus full of children and makes head lines for weeks. then they will do some knee jerk reaction and make horrible law to please the know nothings.

 

Hi, ex truck driver here not entirely relevant, but somewhat......

Weight limits in NZ are defined by axle weights and gross combination weight (if towing), the limit of which depend on the number of axles.

Axle weight limit for Class 5 vehicles is 6.5T per axle, with maximum overall limit of 60T which is the maximum legal weight for the rig.

Weighbridge scales measure axle weights.

Personally speaking I would not want to be towing a 3.5T (actual weight?) trailer with a ute weighing less than 2 tonne, unless it had a 5th wheel.

Otherwise the trailer will quite likely push the ute around a fair bit on the road. That's my 2c....

Interesting thread.

Did my Class 2, do not regret having that additional knowledge and experience.

Agree that towing 3.5T behind a 2T vehicle feels imbalanced and you need to allow for the load of people and luggage.... 

Get a tow vehicle with enough mass to be safe and if this means going to C2 license, do it.  I don't know anyone who's actually regretted upgrading their license.

But it'd give me the willies towing a 3.5T trailer with a Class 1 vehicle.
This is something i'd be thinking about hard if considering a trailer that large, to be honest.

johno1234:

 

tweake:

 

 

 

correct.

 

when was the last time you heard of anyone actually being checked? this is why unbraked 2 ton (or less) trailers are fairly common. i was told a botting mag did some testing and none of the boat trailers tested passed. people skimp on the braking to cut costs. common thing to see with hire trailers, the braking actuators detuned so the brakes don't work as much. i even had a customer come in the other day with a 2.5 ton trailer that had 1.5 ton brakes fitted to it.

 

its a loop hole in the law thats over due to be closed.

 

 

I bet it has been looked at and is sitting in the too-hard basket 

 

It would take a bit of work but I think this could be enforced. First thing is you need a space long enough to do 0-33-0 with room to spare.

Back of the envelope says:

• 9m/s max speed
• assume a heavy truck at 120kg/kW. This corresponds to a 50kW 6 ton "light vehicle towing trailer" or a 370kW 44t truck, so are pretty conservative. I don't expect they would be used to test truck brakes anyway as they are subject to certification and testing already. 
• we get about a 5 second acceleration.
• this apparently gives a 30m acceleration distance, which seems conservative but reasonable. .
• assume 1 second, 10m to react to stop light
• assume 20m (very very bad brakes) to stop.

Total length needed: 60m. 

A quick look at some existing NZ weigh stations suggests that there's often room for a 60m track beside the actual scale. You'd put a line of crash barriers to separate it from the actual area where trucks are being weighed/inspected. Require vehicles towing trailers to stop at any open weigh station. 

The hardware is pretty simple: one of those radar-based speed signs with a different display and maybe slightly better radar.

A speed indicator during acceleration, then display 'STOP' once 33km/h is reached. Measure the distance between where the speed dropped below 30km/h, and where the vehicle actually stopped. Display resulting distance with a check or cross. 

It also looks like the current weigh stations are being replaced (I certainly haven't seen one open in a long while), so there may be options to just use the existing sites and remove the scales.

SomeoneSomewhere:

 

It would take a bit of work but I think this could be enforced. First thing is you need a space long enough to do 0-33-0 with room to spare.

 

the current system can be done, but its simply not being done and i've only ever heard of it being done once. police ignore crime to stay on budget. especially stuff thats hard to do. speeding is easy and cheap to enforce. weighing and test driving vehicles is time consuming hence expensive, so it gets ignored. like wise investigating crashes, its just written off as something else because its takes time/cost to investigate. its only when people die that they look and you don't get to hear about the results.

the other issue of course is even if people fail the test they will claim ignorance (because its not a hard and fast rule) and that its done to industry standards so its not their fault. but then the customer tells the industry we want cheap trailers and we don't care about safety, so industry makes that happen.

Bung:

 

...

 

I would bet that shalodge is probably an ex commercial vehicle investigation unit staff member. Not all were Police, some were qualified mechanics with authorised officer status. Known as the God Squad they manned the weighbridges.

 

The following is from the NZTA guide to safe towing for light vehicles with added bolding.

 

"Most vehicles have tow ratings given to them by the manufacturer specifying the gross trailer weight braked, unbraked, or both, that the vehicle can safely tow. Although the law does not require these tow ratings to be followed, the NZ Transport Agency recommends that they be taken into account.

 

I acknowledge  both your points. Which just goes to show:

 

1. NZTA need to sort out and clarify their information. As we have seen from examples posted here, it is confusing to say the least.
2. The law around this is an ass and needs to be sorted.

As a stupid example, according to the law if I had a Class 4 licence, and ignoring the laws of physics, I could load my ute up with 25 tonne and not be prosecuted for being overweight. I'm sure I would be pinged for something else, but not being overweight. Heavy weight vehicles on the other hand seem to be pretty strictly regulated in this area.

The curious thing is your need for a class 2 licence is determined on the ratings of your vehicle & trailer combination rather than actual loading but if you have  the class 2

"A light trailer is a trailer with a GLW of 3500 kg or less. If you have a class 2 or 4 licence, you can tow a light trailer behind your rigid vehicle. Don’t count the weight of the light trailer in any gross combined weight calculations.

So the weight counts until it doesn’t.

I have no interest in towing a caravan but now that the local transfer station has a weighbridge that has been quite sobering.