Following up on a Thread a couple of months ago RE: Trailer Chain Requirements it was pointed out by a forum member that under SA Regulations chains were not required if a Brakeaway System was fitted to the trailer. As this was inconsitant with federal regulations I wrote to the SA Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure pointing out the inconsistency in the regulations and was adamant that the Federal Regulations took president over State Regulations. The crux of my letter pointed to this particular paragraph on their website. Page 3 Towing Rules 1 A trailer must be securely coupled to the vehicle towing it and must have a safety connection such as a chain or cable that will keep the trailer connected to the towing vehicle in the event of an accidental disconnection of the tow coupling. If the trailer is fitted with a breakaway braking system, then a safety chain or cable is not required.
Today I received a reply from the Vehicle Services Manager of the Department (Clinton Halliday) in which he explains the situation. The publication refers to the 1999 SA Road Traffic Rules for trailer towing and braking requirements which is applicable for trailers manufactured prior to 1989. The sheet (Publication ) does not include requirements specified in the Australian Design Rules (ADR's) which are applicable to trailers manufactured after 1988. The ADR's are addressed in Vehicle standards Bulletin Number 1 (VSB1) which is a publication of the Federal Department of Transport and Infrastructure. He also noted that the SA publication was to be amended. Chains are Required.
This particular episode highlights the confusion that may arise when quoting any State or Motoring Club publications on matters relating to trailer manufacture and/or towing. One should always consult VSB1 for the correct upto date regulations.
The States may introduce additional regulation providing they are not in conflict with the Federal regulations. e.g. Under NSW regulations, where two chains are fitted then they must be crossed.
I'm now waiting for a reply from the Secretary of the Federal Department of Transport and Infrastructure RE: Abnormalities in VSB1 in relation to GTM and ATM. Cheers, ozjohn
-- Edited by ozjohn on Thursday 9th of June 2011 11:00:31 AM
Pejay said
11:27 AM Jun 9, 2011
I think for our own peace of mind - I would not travel without using the chains, and crossing them, wherever we go.
gubby said
12:30 PM Jun 9, 2011
Pejay wrote:
I think for our own peace of mind - I would not travel without using the chains, and crossing them, wherever we go.
I agree Pejay wether a van has breakaway brakes or not I personaly wouldn't want to be coming the opposite direction to one that has come "off the ball" ..
Wombat 280 said
03:42 PM Jun 9, 2011
I sometimes wonder about just how good chains are in holding the trailer to the tug should the hitch disengage. I believe that the mechanical forces applied during a disengagement would require a link size that most GN's couldn't lift. Most of the chains I've seen are so long when connected to the tug they would allow the hitch to dig in and rip the tow bar clean off the Tug, if they were short enough to hold the trailer hitch up off the ground you would never be able to reverse the trailer apart from in straight lines . While a legal requirement since the advent of trailers and towbars (when vehicles had much greater ground clearance at the tow hitch) I truly wonder if they would really serve and useful purpose if disengagement did occur on a modern vehicle of today
jimricho said
06:25 PM Jun 9, 2011
In addition to Wombat 280's thoughts I've wondered whether we should be using load rated bow shackles instead of the usual "common or garden" variety D shackles??
elliemike said
01:20 AM Jun 14, 2011
jimricho wrote:
In addition to Wombat 280's thoughts I've wondered whether we should be using load rated bow shackles instead of the usual "common or garden" variety D shackles??
A rated "D" Shackle is just as good as a rated "Bow" Shackle. Think also, size for size (cross section) the D shackle has a slightly higher rating usually.
They have different applications. The Bow type is more versatile in taking loading from a wider and differing angles to the D type.
Hence the recommendation for Bow Shackles on Snatch straps.
Also more room in the Bow of the shackle for bulky straps.
Regards
Mike
jimricho said
07:26 AM Jun 14, 2011
The bow shackles seem to be the ones recommended for use with recovery straps as you point out, but I'm "out of my league" when it comes to comparing one with the other, so I "take on board" your comments. I guess my point is should we be using rated shackles (D or bow) or is it pointless if the chain itself (pardon the pun) is the weak link?
I guess another issue is that rated shackles may have a tendency to "walk" when parked and/or when left on the chains or towbar.
Wombat 280 said
08:53 PM Jun 14, 2011
I think it's about time that the rule makers look long and hard at reviewing many of our road and vehicle rules and consider an approach to removing 2 old rules for each new one they want to introduce. Governments have a habit of introducing rules that contradict rules already in existence and when it's drawn to their attention simply introduce another to compound the earlier stuff up. If you go and purchase a full copy of the NSW Motor Traffic Act you will find their are still rules in there referring to the horse drawn cart days and the need for flag walkers . Rules for the sake of keeping government scribes in work. No wonder no bugger followers the really simple ones like speed limits.
PeterD said
07:21 PM Jun 18, 2011
Wombat 280 wrote: If you go and purchase a full copy of the NSW Motor Traffic Act you will find their are still rules in there referring to the horse drawn cart days and the need for flag walkers . Rules for the sake of keeping government scribes in work. No wonder no bugger followers the really simple ones like speed limits.
Another cynic with little appreciation of what goes on raises his head. Just put "Australian Road Rules" into your search engine and you can gat a copy free, you don't have to pay for it. Horses and carts were removed at least 20 years ago. You have not been legally able to relieve yourself up against the front LH wheel since the 70s.
ozjohn said
09:51 PM Jun 18, 2011
Hiya Peter,
I'm pretty sure it was the front RH wheel mate. the one furtherest from the curb so that the ladies on the foot path couldn't see ya and you could still hold the reins and control the horses.
Boy there are time on the long Freeway home from the City that I wish we could do it with cars. Thank God for McDonalds in Frankston.
Cheers, OJ
-- Edited by ozjohn on Saturday 18th of June 2011 09:52:11 PM
ken thomas said
01:20 PM Jun 19, 2011
As long as there is nobody around ,who cares Any inside wheel will do Ken
PeterD said
02:51 PM Jun 19, 2011
ozjohn wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was the front RH wheel mate.
No mate, the old coaches had the driver sitting on the LHS. It's only the modern reconstructions that have the driver on the RHS. I was surprised to still see that regulation in the copy of the NSW motor traffic act, 1974 edition. Up till about 10-15 years ago it was a common expression "I'm off to use the LH front wheel."
The truckies of this country use the rear LH wheel whenever and wherever the urge arises. It's high time this country adopted national road rules. With travel traversing borders at a huge rate, there is a definite need. The transport sector I've joined recently most certainly could to with it. Truckies have to be aware of each state's conditions, and now I've learned escort pilots have to know every state's laws as they relate to escorting oversize loads. There are huge fines if these laws are breached. There are specific routes for over-dimension/weight loads and vehicles. Signage is also not uniform in some instances. Make it national!
Wombat 280 said
09:06 PM Jun 21, 2011
PeterD wrote:
Wombat 280 wrote: If you go and purchase a full copy of the NSW Motor Traffic Act you will find their are still rules in there referring to the horse drawn cart days and the need for flag walkers . Rules for the sake of keeping government scribes in work. No wonder no bugger followers the really simple ones like speed limits.
Another cynic with little appreciation of what goes on raises his head. Just put "Australian Road Rules" into your search engine and you can gat a copy free, you don't have to pay for it. Horses and carts were removed at least 20 years ago. You have not been legally able to relieve yourself up against the front LH wheel since the 70s.
Agreed ,Cynic Yes As I said the NSW Road rules. Although there are Australian Road Rules they are supplement by STATE rules which when driving in that particular state take precedence , Just another example why cynics like me get cheesed off with rule makers . I like many others would love to see one set of road rule but it will never happen while all motorist are classified purely as revenue source The rule book in NSW still reads like the Sydney phone book.
Delta18 said
09:02 AM Jun 23, 2011
ken thomas wrote:
As long as there is nobody around ,who cares Any inside wheel will do Ken
I personally prefer an outside wheel, the only "inside wheel" I have is the steering wheel...lol
ozjohn said
04:24 PM Jun 23, 2011
Delta18 wrote:
ken thomas wrote:
As long as there is nobody around ,who cares Any inside wheel will do Ken
I personally prefer an outside wheel, the only "inside wheel" I have is the steering wheel...lol
As this was inconsitant with federal regulations I wrote to the SA Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure pointing out the inconsistency in the regulations and was adamant that the Federal Regulations took president over State Regulations.
The crux of my letter pointed to this particular paragraph on their website.
Page 3
Towing Rules
1 A trailer must be securely coupled to the vehicle towing it and must have a safety
connection such as a chain or cable that will keep the trailer connected to the towing
vehicle in the event of an accidental disconnection of the tow coupling. If the trailer is
fitted with a breakaway braking system, then a safety chain or cable is not required.
Today I received a reply from the Vehicle Services Manager of the Department (Clinton Halliday) in which he explains the situation.
The publication refers to the 1999 SA Road Traffic Rules for trailer towing and braking requirements which is applicable for trailers manufactured prior to 1989.
The sheet (Publication ) does not include requirements specified in the Australian Design Rules (ADR's) which are applicable to trailers manufactured after 1988.
The ADR's are addressed in Vehicle standards Bulletin Number 1 (VSB1) which is a publication of the Federal Department of Transport and Infrastructure.
He also noted that the SA publication was to be amended.
Chains are Required.
This particular episode highlights the confusion that may arise when quoting any State or Motoring Club publications on matters relating to trailer manufacture and/or towing.
One should always consult VSB1 for the correct upto date regulations.
The States may introduce additional regulation providing they are not in conflict with the Federal regulations.
e.g. Under NSW regulations, where two chains are fitted then they must be crossed.
I'm now waiting for a reply from the Secretary of the Federal Department of Transport and Infrastructure RE: Abnormalities in VSB1 in relation to GTM and ATM.
Cheers,
ozjohn
-- Edited by ozjohn on Thursday 9th of June 2011 11:00:31 AM
I agree Pejay wether a van has breakaway brakes or not I personaly wouldn't want to be coming the opposite direction to one that has come "off the ball" ..
I sometimes wonder about just how good chains are in holding the trailer to the tug should the hitch disengage. I believe that the mechanical forces applied during a disengagement would require a link size that most GN's couldn't lift. Most of the chains I've seen are so long when connected to the tug they would allow the hitch to dig in and rip the tow bar clean off the Tug, if they were short enough to hold the trailer hitch up off the ground you would never be able to reverse the trailer apart from in straight lines . While a legal requirement since the advent of trailers and towbars (when vehicles had much greater ground clearance at the tow hitch) I truly wonder if they would really serve and useful purpose if disengagement did occur on a modern vehicle of today
A rated "D" Shackle is just as good as a rated "Bow" Shackle. Think also, size for size (cross section) the D shackle has a slightly higher rating usually.
They have different applications. The Bow type is more versatile in taking loading from a wider and differing angles to the D type.
Hence the recommendation for Bow Shackles on Snatch straps.
Also more room in the Bow of the shackle for bulky straps.
Regards
Mike
I guess another issue is that rated shackles may have a tendency to "walk" when parked and/or when left on the chains or towbar.
Another cynic with little appreciation of what goes on raises his head. Just put "Australian Road Rules" into your search engine and you can gat a copy free, you don't have to pay for it. Horses and carts were removed at least 20 years ago. You have not been legally able to relieve yourself up against the front LH wheel since the 70s.
Hiya Peter,
I'm pretty sure it was the front RH wheel mate. the one furtherest from the curb so that the ladies on the foot path couldn't see ya and you could still hold the reins and control the horses.
Boy there are time on the long Freeway home from the City that I wish we could do it with cars.
Thank God for McDonalds in Frankston.
Cheers, OJ
-- Edited by ozjohn on Saturday 18th of June 2011 09:52:11 PM
Any inside wheel will do
Ken
No mate, the old coaches had the driver sitting on the LHS. It's only the modern reconstructions that have the driver on the RHS. I was surprised to still see that regulation in the copy of the NSW motor traffic act, 1974 edition. Up till about 10-15 years ago it was a common expression "I'm off to use the LH front wheel."
It's high time this country adopted national road rules. With travel traversing borders at a huge rate, there is a definite need.
The transport sector I've joined recently most certainly could to with it. Truckies have to be aware of each state's conditions, and now I've learned escort pilots have to know every state's laws as they relate to escorting oversize loads.
There are huge fines if these laws are breached.
There are specific routes for over-dimension/weight loads and vehicles.
Signage is also not uniform in some instances.
Make it national!
Agreed ,Cynic Yes As I said the NSW Road rules. Although there are Australian Road Rules they are supplement by STATE rules which when driving in that particular state take precedence , Just another example why cynics like me get cheesed off with rule makers . I like many others would love to see one set of road rule but it will never happen while all motorist are classified purely as revenue source The rule book in NSW still reads like the Sydney phone book.
I personally prefer an outside wheel, the only "inside wheel" I have is the steering wheel...lol
Love the way you think.
OJ