# A-frame to Germany



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

Just returned from a week in Lahnstein (Koblenz) and thought I would let all you A-frame towers know we had no trouble with any officialdom whatsoever but we did leg it through France to the Belguim border and back without stopping; to reduce the chance of an encounter with the anti-British French police!

We got pulled over in Belgium by a motorist who was raving over the system and wanted one for his M/H and every time we stopped the cameras were out and details taken. I am thinking of asking Towtal for sales commission!

Once the continentals realise that our kits are not just for temporary/emergency tows but are permanent fittings to the car and properley engineered and braked/lit then they must make it legal for their citizens too?

For over 900 miles it towed beautifully, didn't affect performance or consumption hardly at all and I really did not know it was there, no chance of the tail (Daihatsu Charade 4-door, 740 KG) wagging the dog (Autoroller 70, 3400 KG). It was really great to be able to leave the van on site connected to Sky etc and tour in air conditioned comfort in the 37 degree heat!


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

Hi Noel,

officially A-frames are illegal in Germany. Maybe the German plod did not bother you because they saw your UK registration. But if you have a German numberplate on your van and tow an A-frame through Germany, then you are in serious trouble.

The only legal way of towing an unmanned car in Germany is on a trailer. 

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*A- Frame to Germany*

Hi Gerhard,

Yes I do know that continental residents are barred from towing on an A-frame but EU directives say that if it is legal in one EU state then for temporary importation/visiting it is OK ie UK to other EU members. After all we accept all sorts of foreign vehicles/combinations here which would never see the green light in UK build regulations!

My point was that most (but possibly not the mostly anti-British French plods) now do not bother UK plated A-framers and as you say we had no trouble in Germany, Holland or Belgium and legged it through France without stopping.

My other point was that with the interest generated it is surely only a matter of time before other EU authorities see the light and accept the use of a properly engineered and very safe A-frame tow for their citizens; as well as lugging a trailer about!

Noel.


----------



## 96783 (Nov 23, 2005)

One wishes it were that simple (other EU countries seeing the light) and, sadly for those who live here and might like to use an A frame, it is not as likely as Noel thinks. Boff hit the nail on the head - German registered, obey the German rules; UK registered, another matter.

I share Noel's sentiments about the French gendarmerie. When stationed at SHAPE in Mons some years ago it was noticeable that the only cars stopped at the Belgian/French border were Brits, even those on SHAPE plates. We were always suspect.


----------



## Scotjimland (May 23, 2005)

*Re: A- Frame to Germany*



Noel said:


> EU directives say that if it is legal in one EU state then for temporary importation/visiting it is OK ie UK to other EU members. After all we accept all sorts of foreign vehicles/combinations here which would never see the green light in UK build regulations!


If it were legal in the UK .. which it isn't. Not wishing to open another debate on the legality of A frames but I abandoned my plan to pull a 2CV with an A frame when I go fulltiming, I considered a trailer.. very briefly I might add, just too much hassle.. the last thing I needed was a pedantic Spanish, French or Germany plod having a bad day and making me unhitch and as Jan doesn't drive having to abandon the toad by the roadside.. :?

I read this and it was fate acompli.. I won't take the 2CV 

Q&A from the NTTA

Quote 
I have a motor home and want to tow a Fiat Seicento behind it using an A-frame. This car has a kerb weight under 750 kg so am I legal with this outfit? Sorry no is the answer. The law regards this as an unbraked trailer and you are allowed to tow up to 750 kg Gross Trailer Weight, not a car's kerb weight. The figure you have to use is the car's Gross Vehicle Weight or Maximum Permitted Weight. This is usually at least 300 - 400 kg more than the kerb weight. We have no knowledge of any car sold in the UK that has a GVW under 750 kg. The only vehicle we know that is completely legal to tow with an A-frame is the French Aixam small "car". This is a full four seater and details can be obtained from Aixam UK on 01926 886100. An A-frame or dolly can only be used to recover a broken down vehicle to a place of safety. Transporting a car is, therefore, illegal. A-frames may be offered with a braking system that applies the car's brakes. These do not conform to the law as the car then becomes a "braked trailer" and has to conform to European Directives contained within the Construction and Use Regulations. It does not conform to the European Directive 71/320/EEC and amendments regarding braking requirements in any way. The use of this A-frame for transportation is illegal. It is still OK for use to recover a vehicle to a place of safety.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

Hi,

what Jim writes about legality of A-frames in UK seems logical. So A-frames are also not legal in Germany or France, not even behind a vehicle with a UK number plate.  

So, if you want to stay legal, then it is a trailer. Or a super-luxury motorhome with a rear garage large enough for a Smart or Seicento.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## DJP (May 9, 2005)

*Aframe*

We have just returned from our second Euro "Trip" with the Smart car on an A frame. 
Briefly, Last trip towed it 2400 miles thru France and Spain. Mainly Autoroute, sometimes sneaking thru tolls as operator did not see the "trailer" on the back and paying basic MH rate.
Second trip 2500 miles thru France into Italy, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Belguim and back into France.
We passed lots of assorted plod, we were passed by assorted plod. Apart from a long look, then the odd smile we were never bothered by anyone in any country. We towed thru some major city centres, Paris, Barcelona, Milan, Trieste, Luxembourg.

The only area we encountered officialdom was at the Mont Blanc tunnel. They refused point blank at first to let us tow the car thru. I argued the point it was a trailer, similar to a car and caravan but in reverse. In the end they conceded, BUT said we were a convoy exceptionelle? as we had a 4 wheeler towing a 4 wheel trailer and the rate would be 200 euro! same as a 40' HGV.
We then had to concede and unhitch and drive thru as 2 vehicles. I am sure the jobsworth had a smile about that. I didn't. It still cost 80 euro for the 2 vehicles, extortanate.

But I digress. Is it legal or not? over here or over there? Of course it isn't

BUT, Can anyone tell me of any person who has been prosecuted anywhere for this offence? I don't want to know if you know a friend who has a friend who has a mate who heard that etc etc. DO YOU?
The answer is NO.


> We got pulled over in Belgium by a motorist who was raving over the system and wanted one for his M/H and every time we stopped the cameras were out and details taken. I am thinking of asking Towtal for sales commission!


Me to and every other country we stayed in. A crowd used to gather as we hooked up to leave the campsites. :lol:

Finally, we had numerous photos taken by passing cars, videos shot, shouts through the window "Bella Bella" and "Supra, Supra" etc.
Fame at last  or is it Framed


----------



## Scotjimland (May 23, 2005)

*Re: Aframe*



DJP said:


> We then had to concede and unhitch and drive thru as 2 vehicles. I am sure the jobsworth had a smile about that. I didn't. It still cost 80 euro for the 2 vehicles, extortanate.





> Can anyone tell me of any person who has been prosecuted anywhere for this offence? I don't want to know if you know a friend who has a friend who has a mate who heard that etc etc. DO YOU?
> The answer is NO.


Hi DJP

You are quite correct, there have been no prosecutions yet.. but your experience at the tunnel is just the sort of incident that I would fear, no second driver and it would be a lot of problems for us..


----------



## DJP (May 9, 2005)

*A frame*

Hi Jim
I understand your worries about single driver. I wonder what would happen if you turned up at the Tunnel with a car on a trailer? 
Anyone had that experience? Another "convoy exceptionalle?"
if I was going again to Italy, I would not go that route. It cost us £150 to get to Lido Del Jesalo in tolls via France. We only spent £50 coming back via Austria, Germany etc. Including the Go Box at 50 euro with tolls prepaid.


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Towing*

Hello All!

I see this topic has raised its head yet again. I read with interest as I am considering the Qpod Sport to tow behind our motorhome. We have an Audi A2 but that would mean having to buy a trailer and then find somehwere to store it on site (it may fit under the van on certain plots).

So is it therefore legal Europewide to tow a Qpod Sport on a motorhome - it does only wiegh 220kG's?










Trev


----------



## Pard (May 1, 2005)

*Aframe*

Can't say I've heard of anyone being prosecuted, but I wonder if insurance companies would be sanguine about the illegality in the event of an accident, and just pay up....


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Noel said:


> Daihatsu Charade 4-door, 740 KG)!


Hi Noel, we have been thinking of buying one of these, what do you think of them?

Hi teamyob, I suspect you would be up against the same old problem, if its got brakes they must work irrespective of the weight of the trailer.

Olley


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A- Frame to Germany*

Hi ScotJimland,

Where is this propaganda from? Possibly the car trailer manufacturers with their vested interest? The UK debate has been over for some time! My Daihatsu car (braked) when coupled and properly plated/signed does conform to all UK/EEC requirements as much as any other braked trailer and if this is not legal, then neither is any other car trailer/caravan!

EEC Directive 71/320/EEC refers to auto-reverse functions; as professionally fitted by Towtal or Car-a-Tow these combinations comply, so where is the problem?

I was hoping to get the continentals to get over their blind objections to good British invention, not fight the UK debate all over again!

Noel.

I quote from the leaflet given (in several languages) by Towtal, for the "pedantic plods" (I acknowledge it won't work with the French):-

The vehicle on tow is for our personal use when the motorcaravan is parked on a camp site. It will be taken back to the U.K. when we have completed our holiday.

May we respectfully inform you of the regulations when towing a car/trailer behind a motorcaravan in the United Kingdom.

When attached with a fixed towing frame the car is considered to be a trailer and is subject to the trailer regulations covered by the official Construction and Use Regulations. A number of EEC Directives apply to U.K. trailer regulations. A car on tow with a fixed towing device is defined as a steerable multi-axle trailer.

May we ask you to notice the "trailer" is carrying the registration number of the towing vehicle and also red reflective triangles.

The general practice agreements of the EEC state:

"Provided a vehicle complies with the Construction and Use Regulations in its country of registrations no modifications have to be made when the vehicle/trailer combination is subsequently temporarily imported into another member country".


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

olley said:


> Noel said:
> 
> 
> > Daihatsu Charade 4-door, 740 KG)!
> ...


Hi Olley,

This car is brilliant. Comes with aircon etc, only £40 to tax, full 4-door opening, 90 degrees with low floor ideal for my wife's voluntary driving (Wilts "Link" good neighbour scheme) and elderly ingress/egress! Around £6000 brand new. Lightest 4-door in its class. 70 - 80 mpg, 948 cc engine but not lagardly.

Noel.


----------



## Scotjimland (May 23, 2005)

*Re: A- Frame to Germany*



Noel said:


> Where is this propaganda from? Possibly the car trailer manufacturers with their vested interest? The UK debate has been over for some time!


Noel 
Not propaganda, shooting the messenger doesn't change anything, I gave my reasons for abandoning the A frame route and a quote from a national body>> National Trailer and Towing Association<< 
The debate is closed as far as I'm concerned, everyone has to decide for themselves about legalities, you made your choice as I made mine. 
They are not legal in Europe and that's good enough for me, I will be spending most of my time there, not the in UK.



> EEC Directive 71/320/EEC refers to auto-reverse functions; as professionally fitted by Towtal or Car-a-Tow these combinations comply, so where is the problem?


Trailer Brake Requirements 
Braked trailers manufactured after Oct. 1982 must be fitted with a coupling that incorporates a hydraulic damper. 
Braked trailers manufactured after Oct. 1982 require brakes that comply with EC Directives. If brakes are required, all wheels must be braked. (if manufactured in or after 1968)

Any braked trailers manufactured after April 1989 must be fitted with a hydraulically damped coupling and auto reverse brakes to give braking efficiencies required by EEC Directive 71/320 (ECE13).

Unbraked trailers manufactured after 1 Jan 1997 must be fitted with a secondary coupling that will provide some residual steering in the event of an unplanned uncoupling. This device should also prevent the ball coupling hitting the ground in similar circumstances. It must be connected to the towing vehicle when the trailer is being towed.

Braked trailers must be fitted with a parking brake that operates on at least two road wheels on the same axle. At all times it must be capable of being maintained in operation by direct mechanical action without the use of hydraulic, electric or pneumatic systems - i.e. Operated by rod or cable action. The efficiency of the handbrake must also comply with EEC Directive 71/320/EEC; i.e. It must be capable of holding a stationary trailer on a gradient of at least 16% (1 in 6.25)

An emergency breakaway cable must be fitted to the parking brake linkage and the other end clipped or fixed round some fixture on the towing vehicle so that, in the event of the trailer becoming detached from the towing vehicle, the cable will apply the parking brake automatically, before snapping itself. It is not recommended to loop the cable round the towball. (But do so if there is no alternative attachment point.) It is a separate offence not to use the breakaway cable provided. 
A secondary coupling as per ( F ) must be fitted to a braked trailer manufactured before 1982 that has a manual handbrake arrangement . (A secondary coupling can also be fitted to a braked trailer with hydraulic damping, manufactured after 1982. In such cases, great care should be taken to ensure that the secondary coupling is appropriate in terms of the weight of the trailer (esp. If it is over 1000kg.). Also the operation of the breakaway cable is likely to be prejudiced.)

1982 regulations demand that all trailers, including unbraked ones, must be clearly marked with their maximum gross weight in kg. This may be checked at any time by the police at a weighbridge. Since 1st January 1997, all unbraked trailer plates must show the year of manufacture


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

hi noel, I think you have made our minds up, :lol: Wife has been dreading taking the micra abroad, no aircon.  

As we already have a trailer, we will use that this year, but an "A" frame has got to be the way to go in the future.

thanks 

olley


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A- Frame to Germany*



ScotJimland said:


> Noel said:
> 
> 
> > Where is this propaganda from? Possibly the car trailer manufacturers with their vested interest? The UK debate has been over for some time!
> ...


ScotJimland,

Nuff said! As you say, you go your way........but thanks for confirming that "the messenger" IS both biased and incorrect and that my set up does indeed comply with the relevant EEC and UK regulations as fully as any other trailer.

Good job Brunel, Stephenson etc and even Fred Dibnah either did not have EU interference in their engineering competence or treated it with the comtempt it deserved!

Regards,

Noel.
Noel.


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

Noel

Does your A-frame setup comply with the braking aspects of the EEC Directive 71/320? I've no experience, but you seem to imply it does. Does this mean the towed car's brakes are linked to the frame somehow? And what about the kerb weight / Gross Trailer Weight / Gross Vehicle Weight / Maximum Permitted Weight issue?

I'm not contradicting you, but I feel this could be a definitive answer to this question which crops up time and again.

Thanks in advance.

Gerald


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

gerannpasa said:


> Noel
> 
> Does your A-frame setup comply with the braking aspects of the EEC Directive 71/320? I've no experience, but you seem to imply it does. Does this mean the towed car's brakes are linked to the frame somehow? And what about the kerb weight / Gross Trailer Weight / Gross Vehicle Weight / Maximum Permitted Weight issue?
> 
> ...


Hi Gerald,

Yes the car is modified so that the car brakes apply on over-run when the M/H brakes as in other trailers/caravans. There is a cable connecting the A-frame to the car brake pedal which also operates when a handbrake is applied on the a-frame when at rest. If handbrake not applied it is possible to reverse the outfit (ie the brakes do not apply when reversing so complying with auto-reverse conditions of the directive), however reversing is not recommended for a great distance but why would you want to when disconnection is so easy and quick and the "trailer" is indepentdently mobile? In any event most caravanners/trailer towers would have a fainting fit if asked to reverse more than a foot!

The Daihatsu Charade manual 5-door is 740kg unladen 1200kg Gross Vehicle weight. My Autoroller is 3400 kg GVW, 4800 kg Train Weight so, 4800 minus 3400 equals 1400 kgs which means the car's GVW is 200 kg under the Autoroller's towing limit.

Regards,

Noel.


----------



## kijana (May 1, 2005)

Hi Noel

We've bought a Smart car to tow on an A frame. I would be most interested to have the details of your system - particularly the cable braking system.

Could you either post it here or PM / email me?

cheers

Bruce


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

kijana said:


> Hi Noel
> 
> We've bought a Smart car to tow on an A frame. I would be most interested to have the details of your system - particularly the cable braking system.
> 
> ...


Hi Bruce,

Look at http://www.towtal.co.uk they fitted mine (Stoke on Trent) takes a day and you can stay in their yard overnight. Chris Cox in Poole do them and Car-a-Tow have agents throughout the country but I like the beefiness of the Towtal version (their own manufacture). Cost about £700 (A-frame/electrics and modifying the car) for the braked version and approx £350 for the M/H towbar.

Noel.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Noel said:


> gerannpasa said:
> 
> 
> > Noel
> ...


So how do the power assist brakes work - or are you saying your vehicle can pass a braking efficiency test withoout power assistance and you can exert enough pressure on the brakes with the cable?

Regards Sallytrafic


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

Frank, 
I think one manufacturer has done tests and claims this?

peedee


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

Hi all, just arrived home today feeling relaxed, thought I’d have a quick look at MHF with a cuppa.
I am now stressed! Same boring ranting about A frames, nothings changes!! Except George T has gone! 
We’ve all read the endless trailer-speak over the illegality of A frames at home and abroad, so WHY? Do we have to enter into this endless and pointless expressing of views?
If anyone really wants to brush up on A-Frames, can they not just do a MHF SEARCH ! I’m sure after reading the first few letters, continuing would be as interesting as watching grass grow! 
I must however say thank you to the original contributor who told us he towed with an A-frame through Germany without problem.
I have in the past 16years limited myself to England, France and Spain without problems; I will now add Germany to my list of possible places to visit. 
Another of our regular contributors was embarking on a Germany trip with his A frame back in June before I left for France (6weeks no Probs.) perhaps if he’s back and reads this he will let us know how his trip went.
Ps. If he’s locked up in Spandau Prison because of highway regulation contraventions, perhaps us A-framers could rally together and send him a food parcel.


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

Hi, Jim

Sorry if the thread bored you. The fact that it keeps coming up (as does inverters, as does fridge problems, as does a number of other topics) shows that's a concern to new members, and existing members who might be considering a change in cirumstance, and towing / A-framing for the first time.

I'm interested, because we're having the legality discussed, with people who have contacted official departments, and with EU regulations quoted. You may be happy to do what you do, but there are others who would prefer to understand the legal position. There is clearly some misunderstanding or lack of clarity in what has gone before.

There was a discussion over the past week or so about the search facility, and some people have difficulty in finding the right information. This is why the same topics come up time and again. Also, there was a discussion about the same topics being brought up, and Nuke is trying to set something up to avoid the boredom and distress this obviously causes some members.

Gerald


----------



## TonyHunt (Oct 10, 2005)

Am currently parked on a Stellplatz in Oberwesel on the Rhine. Two GB motorhomes towing cars on A frames and havent even seen a german policeman who might be remotely interested in what we are doing ( fingers crossed). Wherever we have been we have created enormous interest and much camera snapping from the local motorhomers who are all envious and want the ins and outs of how it all works. For those interested in Stellplatz in this area south of Koblenz there arent many of them but this ones a cracker. The owner speaks perfect English and couldnt be more helpful. For around ten euros a night we are right on the riverbank with all facilities, 16 amps electric, and to cap it all Wireless Internet connection for the whole of our stay for two euros extra total.
For the guy in mid devon who is looking for an A frame try Car A Tow in Poole, a lot nearer home for you and in my opinion a better product.


----------



## kijana (May 1, 2005)

Tony & Noel

Great, thanks for the info. I'll chase it up. Good to hear there is still a Nelsonian telescope in working order in Europe (or at least some parts of it). Shame this extremely useful device doesn't find more use in Blighty. . .

Bruce


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

TonyHunt said:


> Am currently parked on a Stellplatz in Oberwesel on the Rhine. Two GB motorhomes towing cars on A frames and havent even seen a german policeman who might be remotely interested in what we are doing ( fingers crossed). .


Glad to hear your not in Spandau prison! So thats 4 motorhomes with A frames that have or are touring Germany without problems!!!!


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

guzzijim said:


> So thats 4 motorhomes with A frames that have or are touring Germany without problems!!!!


I just hope that all these A framers have the requisite modifications to the towed vehicle to allow the brakes to be operated by the A frame, and that the weight of the towed vehicle is within the legal limits.

It's dangerous to say "well, I've never had any problems". If A frames become more popular, Plod will start to take a bit more notice. They will _really_ take notice if an illegal A-framed vehicle is involved in an accident. It's fairly clear you can't just hook up any old jalopy to the back of your MH.

Gerald


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Qpods / A frames / Towing*

The August edition of MMM carries a reader letter extolling the virtues of the Qpod, I would love to take a Qpod or vehcile with A frame legally. Looked at the Qpods at the Peterborough show. However it is my understanding that one of the required legislations is that where brakes are fitted on the "trailer" they must work, regardless of the trailer being over or under 750 kg.

You can get a leaflet from the Department For Transport which advises of all this.

Though the Qpod has its front wheels off the ground the rear brakes do carry brake components, and therefore must work, I contact HMM by Email asking how the set up works as I was interested in the reader letter. I received a reply back over the weekend (August 5the/6the) confirming that my assumptions are correct, if fitted brakes must work. Further advising me the only real legal way even with the Qpod is on a trailer.

By the way further in the HMM mag is another article on A Frame usage, replying to another readers query, about travelling abroad and their legality. As they advise, they cannot confirm they are legal in the UK let alone abroad, makes interesting reading.

A previous reply has summed it up quite nicely, you can insure your van, you can insure the car, but have you really taken your insurance company to task and advised them how you are coupling them together. If your insurance company is fully aware and happy, then you only have to worry about the law, someone someplace will be stopped.

Lastly do you really want to put your family at risk if the legality is questionable, I understand the NTTA is aware of tests in Australia which shows that the coupling of the front suspension legs by the use of Bull bars or A frame attachments can have an effect on the sensors for the airbags.

All you people who keep telling all us doubters of what a good system you have, I think I will wait until its proven, thank you, my life and that of my family means quite a great deal to me. Afterall that is why we enjoy M/H so much, its give us quality time to spend with our families.

Derek


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

Well put.

Gerald


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

Quote 
I just hope that all these A framers have the requisite modifications to the towed vehicle to allow the brakes to be operated by the A frame, and that the weight of the towed vehicle is within the legal limits.


My Car a Tow A frame set-up not only works the brakes but also the SERVO UNIT as well ! 

I not going to explain more, as I would be defeating my original message context (boring), if you want to find out more do a MHF search, it’s all in the archives somewhere.


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

Thank heavens for the freedom to chose  I can can chose whether to tow and what with and I can also chose whether to read boring threads or not  
At least posts in this thread and others like it make sure readers are in possession of facts and what is happening in the real world so we can make our own judgements as to what is best for our own needs.

peedee


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't find it a boring subject (and I'm not likely ever to tow a car behind my van on trailer or A frame)

Frank


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

guzzijim said:


> Quote I not going to explain more, as I would be defeating my original message context (boring), if you want to find out more do a MHF search, it's all in the archives somewhere.


Hi Jim since you have been on holiday new members have joined, to some of them the "A" frame controversy will be totally new, if this forum is about anything, its the exchange of information.

Simply telling people to use the flawed search system is hardly the way for this forum to go forward, and attract new members, who may be able to teach us all something from their own expertise.

Olley


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Qpods / Towing / A Frames*

It is my understanding that the CCC are reviewing their position re A Frames and there is a possibility of something in the next mag, I am also informed that Which Motorhome is publishing something in their next mag (Sept) as well.

Whilst we all do have freedom of choice, think carefully with your insurance company, if they belive it is illegal they will use the small print not to pay out. Which is why in my reply earlier reply I advise please ensure they are fully aware of how you couple your car and van together, especially with European cover.

I have seen a number of letters in one mag where owners/operators where concerned they where being charged extra on some sites, they should be thinking themselves lucky they are allowed on the site. If the wardens allow the A Frame user on site, they themselves are therefore condoning the "illegal" use, if in the event of an accident on site involving one of these units and the insurance company does not pay out, does the liability insurance of the site therefore pay.

I wonder how many site owners, (the CC and CCC) have looked into the fact if they have responsibility in this area.

Derek


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

*Re: Qpods / Towing / A Frames*



Decca said:


> they themselves are therefore condoning the "illegal" use


As far as I can tell, the use of A frames is not illegal per se, but their use is covered by those regulations concerning trailers. As such, there _may_ be A framers out there who are driving illegally, but to say they're illegal is as wrong as it is to say "I've never been caught, therefore ..."

I agree with Olley. I know certain subjects keep cropping up, but the questions are asked by people new to motorhoming, by and large (me included). I think to answer with an arrogant and impatient tone (as _seems_ to be the case here - apologies if I've misread) only has the effect of stopping new members from asking questions, for fear of attracting that sort of reply.

Gerald


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A Frames*

Gerald, I am sorry if you feel my reply is arrogant or impatient, this was not intended. I have only owned my M/H for 4 months so I still consider myself as neweebe, I find this forum and others similar invaluable.

One of the previous replies advised this forum was intended to give a fuller picture so everyone could make up their own mind. I am but putting information on this thread for those to do just that, it is all summed up very nicely in the August edition of MMM and their reply to one of their customers, who wishes to know the position about using an A Frame abroad.

I have been in the Motor Industry (on the manufacturers side) for 30+ years, I am not aware of any vehicle yet manufacturd which has been produced with an automatic de coupling device when reversing, so (personal again) I am of the opinion no A Frame is legal in the UK. Replies I have (in writing) from Pratical Motorhome, the CC, CCC and NTTA would all confirm my thoughts that it is extremely unlikely that any A Frame in the UK is currently legal, which has permitted me to form my own opinion.

If you or any user is aware of an A frame manufacturer which can produce for me the test results confirming their product meets, EU Community Directive 71/320/EEC and within the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986/1078) and the Road Vehicles Lighting regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1796 regulation 15 and 16, then I for one would consider myself a candidate for an A Frame purchase.

And, if you and and/or a reader can advise me of the details of their insurance company which being fully aware of the coupling of a vehicle and van by use of an A Frame, advises in writing or noted on the policy they still provide cover, then again I for one would strongly consider an A Frame for use.

It is not my intention to appear candid, arrogant nor impatient, as you I am only trying to impart some of the information I have sought and obtained over these last 4 months, and by nature it is only over the last 4 months that in itself makes it very current information.

PS I will buy you a pint if we ever meet on site, it is not my wish to upset any of the brethren

Derek


----------



## 100392 (Aug 7, 2006)

Read all your messages about MotorHoming in the Uk. I am fairly new at this and this is my first forum. I am driving a Hymer B674. 2005 model.
If the Englisch motorhome owners think there is a lot of confusion in your country and Europe I would say buy a motorhome in Holland and you really get bushed.
Weights, driving licence , speedlimits , towing an A frame or trailer, tyre and axel payload to name some.
A great deal of motorhomes in Holland are sold on a registration certificate of < 3500 Kg. The German ones up to 7 to 8 meters are technically made for between 3900 Kg and 4250 Kg and a axelload of front 1800Kg , back 2200Kg.
The weight of these vans unloaded is usually between 3100 Kg and 3400Kg. and approved for 4 passengers. Lets say two adults and two kids a fair estimate of 275 Kg. Not mentioning luggage, gear, water gas etc. 
Lets say a minimum of 600 Kg total as a conservative estimate.
So virtually most M.H. in Holland are illegal. A normal B driving licence is up to 3500Kg. My van for instance on the registration is 3500Kg. My loaded weight is on average 3800Kg to 3900Kg and I have a C licence.
Some are on registration as a normal sedan and some as a light truck.
If you have a registration as normal sedan there is no restriction on speed etc, but with a registration as truck you have speedlimitions , passing limitation and retarderproblems.
I am traveling to Scotland end of august for three weeks.
Any advice is welcome


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

*Re: A Frames*



Decca said:


> PS I will buy you a pint if we ever meet on site, it is not my wish to upset any of the brethren


 8O 8O Woo hoo! I've got a brother called Derek, but you are clearly not he :lol: :lol:

Derek, my comments were not at all aimed at you. Sorry if they read that way. Your post was anything but arrogant.

Clearly, the situation is grey at best. I have spent some time this morning looking back through previous posts (yes, Dave B, using the search facility :wink: ), as our friend suggested, and there's new information come out here than was quote previously.

One of the things I like about this place is the interaction. It's big enough to get responses to lmost any question, even in the height of the holiday season. Like Frank (Sallytraffic), I am unlikely to want to tow anything in the near future, although I can see the advantages in having a non-MH on site for tootling around. We'll see. Nothing is forever.

Seems like I owe you a pint instead, now  

Gerald


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Qpods / Towing / A Frames*



Decca said:


> I have seen a number of letters in one mag where owners/operators where concerned they where being charged extra on some sites, they should be thinking themselves lucky they are allowed on the site. If the wardens allow the A Frame user on site, they themselves are therefore condoning the "illegal" use, if in the event of an accident on site involving one of these units and the insurance company does not pay out, does the liability insurance of the site therefore pay.
> 
> I wonder how many site owners, (the CC and CCC) have looked into the fact if they have responsibility in this area.
> 
> Derek


It might be worth checking you insurance to see if your motorhome or M/H and Trailer is insured off road/ highway, ie. campsite, for other than fire and theft.
As for charging for A framed towed cars not being allowed on site, thats an easy one to solve, just unhitch and drive in!!
For those who use trailers for transporting their cars how long will it be before you have to pay extra on site for it? after all you are using more space.
With regard to the Q car, would you drive it? it has all the protection of a wet paper bag. I wonder what the car crash-test dummies looked like after testing.
For all those hang on the back scooter fans, have you checked on overhang from rear wheels regs? are you overloading your rear axle?
I know, A\framing it's illegal, but I consider it less dangerous than, tail wagging dog trailer set-ups!
Finally the MHF Search Engine, this is not a free site, so why has it not been fixed.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A Frames*



Decca said:


> Gerald, I am sorry if you feel my reply is arrogant or impatient, this was not intended. I have only owned my M/H for 4 months so I still consider myself as neweebe, I find this forum and others similar invaluable.
> 
> One of the previous replies advised this forum was intended to give a fuller picture so everyone could make up their own mind. I am but putting information on this thread for those to do just that, it is all summed up very nicely in the August edition of MMM and their reply to one of their customers, who wishes to know the position about using an A Frame abroad.
> 
> ...


Derek,

Where does the directive mention "automatic de-coupling when reversing"? I would have thought that is the last thing anyone wants! As for auto-reversing ie the brakes come of when reversing, then this works with my A-frame. Most of the arguments you gather against A-frames can also be applied against any other trailer/caravan; as the braked A-frame; as fitted by the major players replicates and conforms just as they do. Are saying do not tow anything in any combination as it is unsafe?

As an aircraft engineer of over 40 years experience I suggest that a M/H towing a small car on 4 wheels is more intrinsically safe than say a car and caravan or a car on a trailer. I have done both and can confirm that there is no chance of the tail wagging the dog with the M/H and a-framed car. I know of no accidents _caused_ by a-frame towing but have seen with my own eyes many wrecked car/caravan outfits by the side of motorways caused by HGV bow wave/crosswind snaking and illegal weight combinations. I expect the insurance companies know of many more and would be glad to accept an inherently safer option.

Noel.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Qpods / Towing / A Frames*



guzzijim said:


> Decca said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen a number of letters in one mag where owners/operators where concerned they where being charged extra on some sites, they should be thinking themselves lucky they are allowed on the site. If the wardens allow the A Frame user on site, they themselves are therefore condoning the "illegal" use, if in the event of an accident on site involving one of these units and the insurance company does not pay out, does the liability insurance of the site therefore pay.
> ...


guzzijim,

I was charged £17.50 extra for my weeks (unfortunately) pre-booked (CCC carefree) stay on the Burg Lahneck site in Lahnstein for my Charade on the a-frame but that is another story see my other post about discriminating against M/Hs and letters in "Practical Motorhome"!

Noel.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

sallytrafic said:


> Noel said:
> 
> 
> > gerannpasa said:
> ...


Sallytrafic,

No, the power assist on the car's brakes does not work but yes the pressure exerted is enough to pass the trailer braking efficiency requirement. How many caravans/trailers do you know of with power assisted brakes?! After all the M/H is doing the major part of the combined braking effort.

Noel.


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Qpods / Towing / A Frames*



Decca said:


> Whilst we all do have freedom of choice, think carefully with your insurance company, if they belive it is illegal they will use the small print not to pay out. Which is why in my reply earlier reply I advise please ensure they are fully aware of how you couple your car and van together, especially with European cover.


No problem, I think if most read their policies they will find a section about towing. It will refer to covering a trailer. There is no mention whether it must comply to trailer build regulations. In the eyes of the UK law, and I quote a traffic policeman, a car on the end of a rope is a trailer. Any how I for one do have it in writing from my insurers Safeguard.

To pick up on safety issues I whole hearted agree with Noel that a car on an A-Frame is far safer than many other towing combinations.



Decca said:


> I have seen a number of letters in one mag where owners/operators where concerned they where being charged extra on some sites, they should be thinking themselves lucky they are allowed on the site. If the wardens allow the A Frame user on site, they themselves are therefore condoning the "illegal" use, if in the event of an accident on site involving one of these units and the insurance company does not pay out, does the liability insurance of the site therefore pay.
> 
> I wonder how many site owners, (the CC and CCC) have looked into the fact if they have responsibility in this area.
> Derek


So are they responsible for ensuring a caravan is legal on the road and that every vehicle on site has got the correct depth of tyre tread?

With repsect to charging there is a whole thread on this obscene practice and a black list of known sites that do. Most of us A Frame tuggers avoid such sites. Sorry cannot find the thread.

peedee


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

*Re: Qpods / Towing / A Frames*



peedee said:


> [With repsect to charging there is a whole thread on this obscene practice and a black list of known sites that do. Most of us A Frame tuggers avoid such sites. Sorry cannot find the thread.


I've found it!

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-88633-.html#88633

Gerald


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Towing / A Frames*

Noel, can I go on record and say that though I have provided what may seem to be a great deal of negatives on this theme, I would love to be able to tow a small vehicle. Over the years I have progressed from frame tents in trailers to folding campers, caravans and now after a break (kids growing up and all that) 4 months ago we purchased a M/H. Like you I feel 4 wheels on the ground is better than two.

In that very short period I have noticed the one flaw (please to all you readers this is my flaw, I do not want to open another debate) and that is the one of getting round some smaller villages with a M/H.

However whatever my personal thoughts are, I would like it to be legal, and all the information I have currently would presume that is not the case.

The Department for Transport leaflet is quite good, you can obtain it from Transport technology and Standards tel 020 7944 2078, it's full title is "Note on A-Frames and Dollies".

Did you also know for example that Regulation 15 and Regulation 86A of the C&U requires the fitting and use of a secondary coupling system in which the trailer is stopped automatically if the main coupling separates whilst the combination is in motion (heaven forbids your car goes one way across the motorway and you the other). Now whilst some A Frames have break away cables, do those cables maintain the pressure and/or lock on the brakes of the car in order it will come to a stop. I.E. does it lift up the handbrake (or something similar) and lock the notches in order the vehicle will stop.

All I want is for someone to provide me the name of an A Frame manufacture who will supply me the certificate advising they have met the standards and the details of an insurance company who is happy to provide cover. Surely if it is questionable in this country and it is illegal in the other European ones, then by nature the unit is illegal on the road the insurance companies will refuse to pay out.

Lots and lots of questions, no answers, not all, but many A Frame users seem to want to burry their heads in the sand. I stress not all this is not painting all with the same brush, I am sure when in command of all the risks some A Frame users are equally concerned.

Derek


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

*Re: Qpods / Towing / A Frames*



gerannpasa said:


> peedee said:
> 
> 
> > [With repsect to charging there is a whole thread on this obscene practice and a black list of known sites that do. Most of us A Frame tuggers avoid such sites. Sorry cannot find the thread.
> ...


Thanks but I think the one I had in mind starts HERE

peedee


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Towing / A Frames*



Decca said:


> Noel, can I go on record and say that though I have provided what may seem to be a great deal of negatives on this theme, I would love to be able to tow a small vehicle. Over the years I have progressed from frame tents in trailers to folding campers, caravans and now after a break (kids growing up and all that) 4 months ago we purchased a M/H. Like you I feel 4 wheels on the ground is better than two.
> 
> In that very short period I have noticed the one flaw (please to all you readers this is my flaw, I do not want to open another debate) and that is the one of getting round some smaller villages with a M/H.
> 
> ...


Derek,

Yes, my a-frame does have a break away cable. As I keep on repeating my combination meets all the criteria in as much as a car + caravan combination does, if mine is illegal, so are the millions who tow other trailers. How many caravan manufacturers supply the certificate you want? Why do you seem to want A-frame makers to meet some higher standard and go beyond their legal obligations to meet the relevant EEC and UK regulations, which they do?

Noel.


----------



## 96783 (Nov 23, 2005)

In my teenage years when courting my wife, many years ago seemingly, there was an advert for Ponds Lipstick which went something like this "Ponds Lipstick stays on and on and on" - a bit like this thread. Is it a confession to say that was almost 50 years ago! If GT was still with us I guess it would be even longer with even more relevant information but, perhaps, not so even tempered.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A Frames*

Noel, personal choice, you are happy to belive that your A Frame manufacturer and possibly others meet the necessary legislation and why should they go beyond.

My personal belief, I am not asking that they go beyond, I have merely advised you this morning of the required legislation that they must meet. Personally I am not convinced they do meet that and as advised on one of my very earlier notes this morning, I have it in writing from the CC, CCC, Which Motorhome, Practical Caravan and the NTTA confirming their views are similar to mine. I am afraid that is enough for me.

Not with standing a response in the MMM to a reader which follows the same trend.

I have contacted a number of "agents" fitting A Frames and/or doing the so called brake conversaion work, seeking to purchase one, the one caveat is that I require to see the confirmation the ones they sell meet the necessary legislation, most have not even had the courtesy to respond (head in the sand attitude again, comes to mind) another just pointed me to the DOT leaflet. That leaflet advises it is legal to use A Frames providing they meet the legislations required. Am I asking too much for that proof ??

And as I said in a very earlier note, I want my family (and if it comes to that) to know my family and other road users are not put at risk because of my actions, simiply for my convenience.

Do you not feel that (if it is true) that if the NTTA is aware of testing in Australia which has linked "Bull bar and A Frame attachments" to airbag problems, this is not enough for the driver to be concerned about his/her safety, their family and/or other road users.

We will agree to agree to differ, you carry on your way, I will join the "tuggers" (which is a terrible experssion), when I have the proof I seek.

Derek


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Qpods / Towing / A Frames*



gerannpasa said:


> peedee said:
> 
> 
> > [With repsect to charging there is a whole thread on this obscene practice and a black list of known sites that do. Most of us A Frame tuggers avoid such sites. Sorry cannot find the thread.
> ...


Here is an updated version with Neol's latest addition, any more PLEASE.

Campsites that have been known to charge extra for a car towed on an A frame.

1. This year, Camping Municipal at la Fleche, ( not a C.C. site ), did charge extra for the 
Car, less than 2 euros I think. ( Richard & Judy Bain MCC )

2. We left the Caravan Club over this when we complained about a CL and got no support whatsoever. ( Paul G. MCC )

3. Camping Cheques Site @ St.Ives Polmanter charge £1( Jim Butcher MCC )

4. Camping Cheques Site @ Dawlish Crofton Holiday Park £2.20 per night. (Peter & Sue Hargreaves MCC )

5. Roundhills in the New Forest, a Forestry Commission site, additional fee of £5 per night. We were due to visit a Forestry Commission site in Scotland for 5 weeks in September, but as the cost would now be an additional £175, guess who is moving to a site that does not charge this fee. ( James Hanks-Tucker Nov.MMM )

6. I understand all Forestry Commision sites in the UK are charging £5.00 extra for a towed car whether it be on an A-frame or trailer. There argument being that they charge for a vehicle (I suppose with an engine) plus a non-engined trailer (caravan or trailer tent). Strange then, that they charge extra if you tow a boat behind a motorhome, whether it has an engine or not. ( Mike MCC )

7. When we where Spain last year at Camping International near Playa de Aro we where charged extra for a car, so its not just Britain, if sites think they can make an extra buck, they do, supply and demand, just good business if you can do it. 
( Olley Motorhome Facts.com )

8. When we were in Spain last year at Camping International near Playa de Aro we were charged extra for a car, so its not just Britain, if sites think they can make an extra buck they do, supply and demand, just good business if you can do it. 
( Olley Motorhome Facts.com )

9. I have also found a site south-west of Inverness that was proposing to charge me £2 a night for my motorbike, which I had brought up for the Loch Ness rally. They deemed it an extra vehicle! It seems a bit mean.

10. Add Newton Mill Camping, Newton Road, Bath to your list. Whilst it is their policy, I argued quite strongly with the owner of the site about it and had the charge waived on that occasion.

From Peedee @ Motorhome Facts

11. Another is Old Oaks Caravan Park Glastonbury, an excellent adults only site. They will waive the charge if you are disabled.

From Peedee @ Motorhome Facts

12. Burg Lahneck, Lahnstein near Koblenz charged me £17.50 a week extra for my small Daihatsu Charade. Unfortunately pre-booked by CCC Carefree or I would not have stayed there even though otherwise a great hill site with superb views over the Rhine.

From Noel @ Motorhome Facts

PLEASE add to my list if you've been charged extra for a car on an 'A' frame or for a motorcycle come to that!


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A Frames*



Decca said:


> Noel, personal choice, you are happy to belive that your A Frame manufacturer and possibly others meet the necessary legislation and why should they go beyond.
> 
> My personal belief, I am not asking that they go beyond, I have merely advised you this morning of the required legislation that they must meet. Personally I am not convinced they do meet that and as advised on one of my very earlier notes this morning, I have it in writing from the CC, CCC, Which Motorhome, Practical Caravan and the NTTA confirming their views are similar to mine. I am afraid that is enough for me.
> 
> ...


Derek,

Nuff said, as you say, you go your way........ but the orgs you mention, except Which Motorhome have all got entrenched axes to grind, particularly the NTTA and are using old info and "cherry picking" the arguments. Do you ask for your proof from them? You can lead a horse to water........! As I also said in an earlier post, good job the engineers that made Britain great didn't have EU pen pushers on their case! I do resent the implication that I am putting myself/family/other road users at risk by using a safe, properly engineered and legal tow, if different to the many millions of other tows which may or may not be safe or legal.

Noel.


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Hi a note from the other camp! happy reading

IMPORTANT UP-DATE - APRIL 2004.
For those who like the idea of towing a car behind a motorhome - there is some very good news. For those who've always been against it - the news is probably not so good.

Over the years there has been a great deal of rumor and misunderstanding concerning the legality of towing frames.
I
As the proprietor of Pro-Tow Frames and designer of the Car-A-Tow Towing Frame System, l, along with stalwart motorhomer Terry Nash of W. Sussex, (I actually think that Terrier Nash would be more appropriate), have finally managed to bring the controversy to a satisfactory conclusion. He has eloquently badgered every government department associated with motor vehicles and trailers, to finally get them to give us some definitive answers.

The Department for Transport have recently stated
"When an A frame is attached to a vehicle (e.g. a motor car) and towed by a motor vehicle (e.g. motorhome) we believe the A frame and car become a single unit and as such are classified in legislation as a trailer"- "we believe the use of A frames to tow cars behind other vehicles is legal provided the braking and lighting requirements are met':

The D f T expressed concern about a car's braking performance without its engine running. "if the braking system has power assistance (i.e. servo or full power) it is likely that this assistance will be required during towing to meet the required braking efficiency"

We are only concerned with small to medium cars, suitable for towing behind a motorhome, generally up to around 800/1100kg kerb weight, and fitted with servo assisted brakes, (vacuum assistance).
Pro-Tow Frames have carried out braking performance tests on a broad range of modern small cars and proven conclusively these cars not only meet the-required performance - 50% braking force in relation to it & maximum - weight - but in most cases far exceed this requirement, without the vacuum servo assistance.

A further point raised, is the ability of the motorhome/car combination to be reversed without operating a manual mechanism. Contrary to common belief, the regulations do not state that braked trailers must be fitted with "auto reverse brakes".

The D f T remind us
"From 1St October 1988 the inertia braking system (overun) is required to allow the trailer to be reversed with the towing vehicle without imposing a sustained drag and such devices used for this purpose must engage and disengage automatically"
Although we understand the meaning, it does not actually state `auto reverse brakes, as commonly fated to modem trailers and caravans, but requires a system to enable a trailer to be reversed without the need to manually operate a mechanism.

There are specific regulations concerning this requirement and the Car-A-Tow frame system can meet the requirements as stated in UN-ECE Regulation No. 13, Annexe 12, Page 137, Paragraph 3:4 and 3:5, providing the system is fitted and operated correctly and is in good condition.

The D f T state
"Where technical requirements are mandated then the burden falls to manufacturers to ensure products meet the requirements"

We are happy that the Car-A-Tow system does comply and does meet the requirements as stated, this has been demonstrated to various experts and can be repeated as often as required.

Yet another misunderstanding is that 'trailers' may not be fitted with hydraulic brakes, the correct regulation is that trailers may not use a hydraulic parking brake. Cars are fitted with a mechanical parking brake (handbrake) and providing this handbrake lever can be operated from the ground, i.e. with feet on the ground, this handbrake conforms to trailer requirements and is completely legal.

The D f T have also stated
"The trailer would not have to be tested to establish that it did meet the requirements - no test facilities are available" !!r !!

The D f T has reminded us continually over the years that they do not have the final say. Whilst they have now stated their belief that A frame towing is legal (after years of suggesting it was illegal), they also remind us:
"it is for the courts to make definitive interpretations of the law" Which court we don't know and as of April 2004 we are not aware of a court expressing a view either way.

S……….After more than 11 years of batting this backwards and forwards with the D f T (formerly The D of T), where does this leave us ?

* The D f T have confirmed they now believe that towing a car with an A frame is legal.

* We have proof that we can meet trailer braking requirements and performance although

* The D f T have stated that testing is not required and

* The D f T have stated that no test facility is available anyway

* We have a conforming parking brake

* We have a conforming breakaway system(for cars below 1500kg) 
* The lighting conforms

* We carry the registration plate of the towing vehicle (covering the rear plate of the car)
That's it then, can we now stop all the nonsense both spoken and printed about the so called `A frame debate ; there is no longer any debate, hook your car on the back and just enjoy your holidays.
Anyone who wishes to challenge any points made here, is invited to contact Alan Bee at Pro-Tow Frames with details of which aspect of A frame towing they consider is not legal.

olley


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Hi also this reply from comfort insurance. (from another site)

The letter I received from Comfort Insurance states: 

"We have received a number of enquiries concerning the cover given under the above policy whilst a car is being towed by the motorhome. 

"Cover under your motorhome policy extends to include Third Party risks whilst any trailer is attached. From a Road Traffic point of view, a car being towed is treated as a trailer, so you will be covered for third party risks under your motorhome policy whilst the car is being towed. Cover for accidental damage to the car would fall under your private car insurance, whether being towed or not (and any other risk once the car is detached)." 

Olley


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Feck It*

I have been reading this topic with interest, this and the many regarding being G****D Despite traveling through Europe by road for 27 years I have never been gassed (oh dear sorry eek! (though many more dreadful things have been tried on me) but one thing does spring to mind.

Are we being too British?

How many time have you passed one of those overloaded old Merc 308Dee minibusses on the Autoroute A7/A8/A9, loaded to the hilt with passengers. The ones with the roof racks stacked high with Suitcases, Bags, Trunks, the odd old lady and a few stolen melons?. You have gazed in amazement and said to your fellow passengers, or indeed yourself how the feck do they get away with that?. One swift movement and the whole lot will go!. trust me they do get away with it, I have seen the very same one go from Italy all the way to the otherside of the western continent without the blink of an eyelid.

Maybe its the fact that the authorities cannot be bothered with a bus full of paperwork, who knows?. The more of us that take an A frame braked or otherwise the better.

Let me have your thoughts!

Trev


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A Frame towing*

The posting from Olley is merely repeating (nearly) word for word the text in the DFT leaflet. I agree whole heartedly that the letter I got from the DFT advises that "A-frames can be used for other purposes in addition to towing broken down vehicles". _(I have rattled many doors as well over the last 4 months)_

Once more I advise that from my point, all I am asking for is that if any of the A Frame manufacturers are saying they have proven to the DFT that their equipment meets the necessary regulations, then they will have received confirmation of those tests, and in particular on the DFT headed paper.

Post it so we can all see.

The posting from Olley advising of the insurance company giving details of towing, is doing just that, it refers to towing, it does not mention A Frames.

Granted on the basis of what Olley has advised it appears we could be nearly there, and by the end of the day I may be convinced I can go ahead and purchase an A Frame, but not quite there yet

Derek


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

I don't see your problem Decca, actions speak much louder than words.
Look what is happening in practice when towing with an A Frame:

1) It is increasingly being used both here in the UK and on the continent without any problem.

2) It is safer than most other methods of towing if the rules are followed.

3) There is no problem with insurance.

4) Its far more convenient than a trailer.

5) If there are two drivers with the outfit, the only drawback of not being able to reverse the complete outfit can quickly and easily be overcome. It can still be done with one but not quite so quickly. But hey! How many times do you need to reverse the complete outfit?

These are facts, not fine words by the media, the clubs, the assocaitions or any supplier and I speak from 5 years trouble free experience of towing with an A Frame and meeting with other like minded owners.

QED

peedee


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A Frame towing*

Peedee,

!) Because it is increasingly being used does not make it legal, would you stick you hand in the fire because others are doing it

2) Do not argue with you , it may be safe, but as above, it has not been proven legal

3) You say there is no problem with the insurance, sorry I am not aware of any insurance company who will cover an illegal unit on the road, nor seen anyone post details saying an insurance company covers them. The one from Olley refers to "trailers", I have emailed Comfort Insurance this morning and asked for clarification, If so then they may possibly have my business, as I have said constantly proven legal I want to run an A Frame as well

4) As 1 and 2 just because it is convenient does not make it legal

5) There is no law which states you have to be able to reverse a trailer, as confirmed to me in letter by the DFT

You state you have had 5 years using one, you have been lucky, other forums do advise of people having been stoped. On one occasion there is a posting of someone in Europe being forced to drive both vehicles separately, good job they had another driver.

The "facts" people are using them is still not proving them legal, I do not think I am asking to much. If the A Frame manufacturers are sure they meet the legislation, then they will have the proof of testing in some form of writing, post it so we can all see.

I have it in writing from no less than 6 bodies and/or popular magazines, and none have been able to confirm the use of an A Frame is legal. Are all these in cahoots with each other.

Again as noted in an earlier reply, granted I have not contacted all, but of the ones I tried to obtain the proof from none would or could supply it

Derek


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

Just like I said a few posts back BORING, BORING, BORING , you are just repeating the same info over and over again.
By now there must be enough postings to fill the Bodleian Library, so why not have a MHF search engine that works!
If a new member wants to brush up on all the latest for’s and against A Frames they can browse to their hearts content without causing an avalanche of repetitive and consequently boring ramblings.
All the views previously expressed for and against are relevant, but they have all been expressed many times, so until the practise is defined as legal or someone is hung draw and quartered or guillotined for towing with an A frame there is little point in all these ramblings.


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

guzzijim said:


> If a new member wants to brush up on all the latest for's and against A Frames


The problem is that the situation isn't clear. The latest fors and againsts are, by definition, not contained in previous postings.

And Jim, people repeating negative and provocatve statements is also boring. If you find this thread so boring, why do you keep coming back here? :roll:

Gerald


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A Frame towing*



Decca said:


> Peedee,
> 3) You say there is no problem with the insurance, sorry I am not aware of any insurance company who will cover an illegal unit on the road,
> Derek


In the a destination Rv case, the judge at the court of appeal said that being over width was not a reason to void the insurance, and the NFU insurance company agreed that this was the case.

So insurance companies will insure illegal vehicles.

Olley


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

*Re: A Frame towing*



olley said:


> So insurance companies will insure illegal vehicles.


Bit of a sweeping statement there, Olley :wink:

I doubt they will if the illegality _could_ have caused, or been shown to at least partically cause, the claim / accident. And if an illegal vehicle causes a fatality, even through accidentla means? Dodgy area. :?

Gerald


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

gerannpasa said:


> guzzijim said:
> 
> 
> > And Jim, people repeating negative and provocatve statements is also boring. :roll:
> ...


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A Frame towing*



gerannpasa said:


> I doubt they will if the illegality _could_ have caused, or been shown to at least partically cause, the claim / accident. And if an illegal vehicle causes a fatality, even through accidentla means? Dodgy area. :?
> 
> Gerald


hi gerald here a the quote from the summing up.

"In the light of this limited evidence I conclude that non-compliance with the ? Regulations so far as the width of the motorhomes is concerned is not a matter material to risk or to premium, that such breach does not, therefore, need to be disclosed to motor insurers and that failure to do so would not be a material non-disclosure entitling insurers to avoid the policy. The fact that the vehicle is wider than normal vehicles is also not material to risk and premium but the evidence is that disclosure of this does not prevent insurance being obtained. If such a vehicle has an accident it could only be its width, and not its illegality, which could be a material factor. In any case under the Insurance Industry Code of Practice any policy with consumers can only be avoided if the circumstance which has not been disclosed is material to the accident giving rise to the claim.

The last part also spells out the insurance code of practice, if you tell them you are pulling with an "A" frame they cannot avoid the policy in the event of a claim.

Olley

PS if your feeling really bored read the whole thing >>>here<<< :lol:


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

*Re: A Frame towing*



olley said:


> hi gerald here a the quote from the summing up.


Thanks for that, Olley. It's really interesting to read an official legal statement. Not quite interesting enough to read the whole thing, mind you.

So, being illegal is not a material factor? How strange. So if you don't have an MOT, and you have an accident, you're covered? Or is this case _specific_ to RV width, and the same wouldn't apply to other matters.

Mind you, part of my very limited experience of solicitors concerned the wording of a will. My mother, before she died, had a clause inserted into her will (by a solicitor) concerning the splitting of the estate in the event of her death. The (different) solicitor waved this away. "That doesn't apply". This is why solicitors will never be poor - they can argue black is white, and quote a stream of test cases to prove it, only to have a judgement about it overturned when some other solicitor makes an even better argument that black is, indeed, tartan.

No offence to the legal profession intended :wink:

Gerald


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

hi Gerald, mine charges £150 per hour! thats why they will never be poor. :lol: :lol: 

mind you he is the first one I have met, that does what he says, in the time he said it would take, in a language I can understand, and he's got a sense of humour. :lol: :lol: :lol: 

I am just thankfull i don't need to use him very often. :lol: :lol: 

Olley


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

I sort of know, through a friend, 'celebrity lawyer' Mark Stevens. He represents Anthea Turner, amongst others. He's always popping up on the telly and radio - he was on, commenting on the massive divorce payout the other day. He's a really nice guy, family man, straight-talking, and seems to be fairly honest. Lovely wife, nice kids, easy to talk to.

And he's stinking rich  I knew choosing engineering as a career was a bad move 

Sorry - off topic.

Gerald


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

*Re: A Frame towing*



Decca said:


> Peedee,
> 
> 3) You say there is no problem with the insurance, sorry I am not aware of any insurance company who will cover an illegal unit on the road,
> 
> Derek


Ah therein lies lies the arguement, it has NEVER beed proved illegal. Insurers cover trailers and as I said before in law a car on the end of a tow rope is treated as a trailer. My insurance covers trailers and in the UK I see my A-Frame as no different to a tow rope, albeit a rigid one with a few more safety features. I wouldn't dream of using a tow rope in Spain though. 

I guess if you are not comfortable with this and other aspects of using an A-Frame and you want to tow a car then you will have to buy a trailer.

peedee


----------



## 96962 (Dec 16, 2005)

I'm not adding to the legality debate here, I've read a few of these threads as a casual bystander but I must admit I don't get it. 

If you're going to tow a car to use on-site, with all the limits which go with towing why have a motorhome? Why not a caravan, what's the advantage of a motorhome in those circumstances? :? A motorbike I can see but a car....

Please feel free to ignore my question if you don't feel like explaining to the uninitiated :?


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

The best of both worlds Dangler  

To be honest, if this country was more motorhome friendly and public transport better and more accessible, I wouldn't bother towing. I don't always take it, depends where I am going and what my plans are. I would never dream of going to Cornwall, Devon or the Lake District without it but if I know I am not going to have any difficulties parking or using public transport, it stays on my driveway until I get back.

peedee


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Dangler said:


> If you're going to tow a car to use on-site, with all the limits which go with towing why have a motorhome? Why not a caravan, what's the advantage of a motorhome in those circumstances? :? A motorbike I can see but a car....
> :?


hi dangler, what easier to travel to your holiday destination in comfortwise, a car or M/H? what's easier to visit the local shops in a large saloon/4x4 or a small car?.

What's the safest combo on the road? car/caravan or MH/car

once on site theirs not a great deal in it if your going to stay awhile, if you like moving about to different site's a MH+car has got to be simpler.

i think the question should be why choose car+caravan if you can afford a MH+car. :lol: :lol:

Olley


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A Frame towing*

Derek[/quote]

Insurers cover trailers and as I said before in law a car on the end of a tow rope is treated as a trailer. .

peedee[/quote]

But don't forget tow ropes are now illegal. As I understand it your only allowed a rigid tow now!!!


----------



## 96962 (Dec 16, 2005)

Hi Olley/Peedee

yes I take your point, and it's obviously a combination which works for you guys. I guess I'm coming from the 'mine's a luxury tent' point of view - Horses for courses. 

Back to the point of the thread, legality wise, it seems that some authority should clarify an otherwise 'grey' area. The trouble is in this case, with the limitations in Europe being as they are, I could see the 'clarification' ending in tears as we fall in line with Europe, same as the current collaboration on speed cameras, though I hope not for your sake's.

PS. Yesterday I saw one with an A frame and motorbike and pushbikes on the back and two canoes on top!


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

Dangler said:


> PS. Yesterday I saw one with an A frame and motorbike and pushbikes on the back and two canoes on top!


It wasn't me, but I do carry in my A framed car, an inflatable boat/ outboard and a home made road trailer that I use for transporting the boat on the back of the car to the nearest beach.


----------



## 96962 (Dec 16, 2005)

guzzijim said:


> It wasn't me, but I do carry in my A framed car, an inflatable boat/ outboard and a home made road trailer that I use for transporting the boat on the back of the car to the nearest beach.


...you see, you guys will never know the angst involved in deciding whether there's room for an extra pillow and beach ball (actually it's easy - if the beer doesn't fit, there's no room, sorry kids!!).


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

*Re: A Frame towing*



guzzijim said:


> But don't forget tow ropes are now illegal. As I understand it your only allowed a rigid tow now!!!


Since when GJ? It is news to me! I know there is a limit on the length of rope of 4.5 metres that you can use and only last year I was towed by the AA using a rope?

peedee


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A Frame towing*



Decca said:


> The posting from Olley is merely repeating (nearly) word for word the text in the DFT leaflet. I agree whole heartedly that the letter I got from the DFT advises that "A-frames can be used for other purposes in addition to towing broken down vehicles". _(I have rattled many doors as well over the last 4 months)_
> 
> Once more I advise that from my point, all I am asking for is that if any of the A Frame manufacturers are saying they have proven to the DFT that their equipment meets the necessary regulations, then they will have received confirmation of those tests, and in particular on the DFT headed paper.
> 
> ...


Derek,

A somewhat obtuse response, did you actually read Olley's post? The DFT cannot give a ruling on a "test" because a) they do not require one and b) they have no test facilitities. Again, ask the trailer manufacturers to provide proof, they can't and have not felt the need either. My insurance company (Safeguard) has been informed exactly of my combination and has no problem (in writing).

Have you telephoned Alan Bee of Pro-Tow Frames to discuss with him why you still consider his product illegal and why you out many hundreds should be provided with proof/test results which the even DFT do not require?

Noel.


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Why tow a Car ?*



Dangler said:


> I'm not adding to the legality debate here, I've read a few of these threads as a casual bystander but I must admit I don't get it.
> 
> If you're going to tow a car to use on-site, with all the limits which go with towing why have a motorhome? Why not a caravan, what's the advantage of a motorhome in those circumstances? :? A motorbike I can see but a car....
> 
> Please feel free to ignore my question if you don't feel like explaining to the uninitiated :?


Hello,

In my opinion towing a caravan (say a ton of weight behind a 1 and a half ton family saloon) is a nightmare. Bobbing and shoving you about everywhere. I once towed my brothers caravan with my 2t VW T5 and it was awful.

I would like to tow a car behind my MH on occasions and as ours is 4.6t a mere 750kG to say 1000kG bobing about behind us and I think it would be barely noticeable?

Trev


----------



## guzzijim (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A Frame towing*



peedee said:


> guzzijim said:
> 
> 
> > But don't forget tow ropes are now illegal. As I understand it your only allowed a rigid tow now!!!
> ...


Apologies Peedee and others, I have searched the Internet regarding towing with a rope being illegal and have found nothing.
I must assume that I was mislead by the Greenflag recovery driver who informed the practise was illegal.
I will enquire further via some friends in the Old Bill will post if I find it to be illegal, otherwise carry on towing


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

Thanks GJ, I also did a search and found nothing. There was a rumour a couple of years ago that Brussels was looking into the use of A Frames within the EEC as part of the harmonising of motoring laws across the continent. I tried serveral times to find out what is going on without success, so have put it down to just that, a rumour. 

peedee


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

I have had another look at the rumour, you certainly cannot find anything on the net if you search for A-Frames and the EEC but I have come across Annex 2 to this document which outlines Brussels objectives over transport. 
As far as I can make out the work to harmonise the regulations regarding trailers is on going and due for completion at the end of 2006 with the possibility of a directive being made in 2007. Whether this specifically includes A-Frames remains to be seen but it does talk about not hindering advances in technology?

Perhaps this will in the future be clarified, perhaps it wont!!!!!:wink:

peedee


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Why tow a Car ?*



teemyob said:


> Dangler said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not adding to the legality debate here, I've read a few of these threads as a casual bystander but I must admit I don't get it.
> ...


Trev,

You are absolutely right, I towed for years with a caravan and it was, on occasion, a nightmare. Towing a 740 kg (Kerb weight, 1200 GVW) Charade behind a 3400 GVW MH is pure joy in comparison, I literally do not know the difference from solo performance in terms of speed, mpg and there is no chance of the tail wagging the dog!

Noel.


----------



## 96633 (Nov 3, 2005)

I have been looking into getting a car & trailer to tow but because of the length of trailer required and the problem with storage I have decided to go down the A frame route. Before doing so I thought that I would check with my insurance company - the NFU Mutual. Having spoken to them this morning they advised me that basically there was not even any need for me to tell them as they considered that it was not any different from towing a caravan or trailer. The car itself would be covered by the car policy whilst being towed and the third party risk was also fully covered. According to them there was no question of any insurance problem arising from this set up.

Brian


----------



## 99187 (May 13, 2006)

Hi all, I’ve just waded through this whole thread with interest! First, some of the folks I waved to on the way back from Cornwall on Monday & didn’t wave back must have written some of the posts (the intolerant ones!) :wink: 

I’m quite new to motorhomes (18 months) & would like to take a small car with us on longer trips to save on blocking lanes with a large MH (Pilote Galaxy 44) & also not having to pack everything away each time we go off site.
An A frame would suite us well, we would tow one of our Smart cars with it, I have looked at trailers which would need to be stored both on a site when we were away & at home which would be expensive as I have to store the MH away from home as there is no room here. 
I am an aircraft engineer of some 25 years & am amazed that NO ONE seems to have looked under their MH to see what the tow bar is mounted to, two flimsy bits of galvanised channel by only 4 bolts & maybe a plate that bolts through the wooden floor & very little else! There is a huge difference when towing a car on four wheels from a trailer with its axles in the middle of the chassis, with a long overhang from the MH axle to the towball when the MH turns right, the towball is swung to the left which then pulls the car in the wrong direction for a while! All that stress will be transferred to the flimsy bits of channel that are held into the bottom of the MH by a few screws into the wood floor! True, there is nil nose weight on the towball but an awful lot of side force!

I also have to ask, how well can the whole outfit with a car on the A frame be reversed as would think that at some point the castor angle of the front wheels may kick in on anything more than a straight back manoeuvre. 

Please don’t take this post the wrong way, I’m genuinely interested in this subject!
I would love to tow out Smart car behind us but I need to do it safely!
Cheers,
Geoff W
Bristol


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

Hi Geoff,

Dunno who put your tow bar on but mine is of substantial construction and is bolted to the chassis with considerably more bolts than 4. Nevertheless at the sharp end, the ball itself is only held on to the bar with two bolts albeit two quite substantial ones. This, I am sure, is covered by some official standard however I do check the ball attachment regualrly and never hook my breakaway cable round it. My towing assembly has never shown any signs whatsoever of coming adrift. I guess the amount of side force experienced by the rig is probably dependent on how responsive the car steering is to the direction it is being pulled in and unless you are making a very sharp turn I would think the side forces are minimal. I can only say nothing has given way in 5 years and neither are there any signs of it giving way.

I don't think towing equipment is included in the MOT but my local garage, the owner who is himself a motorhomer, is pretty good at alerting me to any potential problems with towing kit. ( I once had a towbar on a car, for which there is now a standard for attachment, work loose)


With regard to reversing, the simple answer is it is not possible to reverse the complete rig the tracking of the car will not allow any car control whatsoever. The only way to do it is as two seperate units. Best try and avoid having to do so.

peedee


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Towing*

Geoff, you made some valid points, the be all to that would be to ensure your tow bar was correctly and adequately fitted. I am of the same frame of mind as you and would like to use an a-frame but legally, all the details I have at present convince me personally, it is not. (that statement will start another debate).

The be all and end all is read everything you can and the decision is yours, but look at Practical Motorhome for October and MMM for September, also search this site for the topic "insurance caution".

I wrote to the Department for Transport and they responded by advising me they are unaware of any legal requirement to reverse "a trailer" so although you are correct (and as confirmed by Peedee), the caster camber locks up this in itself does not make it illegal. You have the trouble of un hitching it, if you find yourself down a blind alley.

My understanding of the MOT by the way is that if it is fitted to the car/van etc undergoing the MOT then it is subject to the MOT test.

Regards Derek


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Towing*



Decca said:


> Geoff, you made some valid points, the be all to that would be to ensure your tow bar was correctly and adequately fitted. I am of the same frame of mind as you and would like to use an a-frame but legally, all the details I have at present convince me personally, it is not. (that statement will start another debate).
> 
> The be all and end all is read everything you can and the decision is yours, but look at Practical Motorhome for October and MMM for September, also search this site for the topic "insurance caution".
> 
> ...


Derek,

Here is my response to the letter you wrote to Practical Motorhome in your crusade against a-framers and anyone contemplating it! I hope to see it printed in the next issue to reassure people that what they are doing (in the correct combination) is not worse than Ghengis Ghan rampaging across Asia!

"In reply to Derek Rathbone (Oct) I would say that his comment that use of an A-frame is highly likely to be illegal is incorrect. A-frames cannot all be dammed by this NTTA propaganda! Some A-frame combinations can be illegal in as much as some car/trailer/caravans combinations are illegal but _can_ also meet _all_ current UK and EEC regulations and directives, as mine assuredly does.

The old chestnut of only being allowed to recover broken-down vehicles was/is a historic concession to the motor trade to use a universal and temporary connection for any vehicle rather than the relatively new introduction of permanent, vehicle specific and properly engineered modifications to accept an a-frame, thereby converting the car into a trailer.

I agree that all a-frames should be of the braked variety irrespective of the car's weight. As the car's brakes are only are applied on the forward over-run and the default is returned to "off" it follows that the brakes are disengaged when reversing, so complying with the auto-reversing directive.

I can reverse in a straight line for a few yards without disconnecting, which is probably more than 90% of caravanners/trailer towers can achieve. In any event the directives do not require me to reverse and disconnection/stowage of a-frame takes about 5 mins max whereupon the car can be moved independently, unlike having to shove a caravan!

A-frame towing is inherently safer than all other forms of towing. I towed with a car/caravan for years and it was, on occasions a nightmare, with even an under 85% weight combination behaving erratically on motorways and in high cross wind/HGV overtaking situations. I would not trust my small Daihatsu Charade lashed to a bouncing about and snaking trailer!

As I have said to Derek in another forum, in this country you are innocent/legal until proved different and no trailer or caravan manufacturer would or could give the 100% written guarantee you are asking for on their products so why must A-frame makers meet some higher standard?

Do you expect site owners to examine every vehicle and trailer combination rolling onto their site for bald tyres, weight/lighting/road traffic irregularities and every person for weapons etc. etc. or is it only a-framers who will get this "duty of care" and H&S Gestapo tactic?"

Noel.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Crusdae against a-Frames*

Noel, if you believe I have been organising a crusade then you will have seen the postings I have made along with any e-mails I have sent to mags looking for answers. By that you will also note that I have on more than one occasion advised that I would love to tow with an a-frame, *but legally.*

I have also on more than one occasion, indeed the last post before you so eloquently re typed my letter and the PM's response, will see I have merely advised it is down to the individual to make up their own mind, in my mind it is illegal. You carry on doing what you wish, free world, freedom of speech etc. I believe people are free to make up their own minds when the information is not one sided and freely available.

You will also note I had the courtesy of writing a second letter to PM advising of a response I had received from the Department for Transport, advising they knew of no legal requirement to reverse a trailer, if I had a *crusade* against A-frame users, please why I would have bothered to do that.

You are so far from the truth with that statement my friend, its obvious you have not read the detail properly.

Derek


----------



## 98452 (Apr 2, 2006)

i was under the impression that only 4 wheeled car trailers were allow in Germany?

As to having to detached and drive two I would be in real problems as I am the only driver.

Trouble is we would need a car in tow.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Crusdae against a-Frames*



Decca said:


> Noel, if you believe I have been organising a crusade then you will have seen the postings I have made along with any e-mails I have sent to mags looking for answers. By that you will also note that I have on more than one occasion advised that I would love to tow with an a-frame, *but legally.*
> 
> I have also on more than one occasion, indeed the last post before you so eloquently re typed my letter and the PM's response, will see I have merely advised it is down to the individual to make up their own mind, in my mind it is illegal. You carry on doing what you wish, free world, freedom of speech etc. I believe people are free to make up their own minds when the information is not one sided and freely available.
> 
> ...


Derek,

Some of your comments in this forum have been quite emotive, not only as to legality but also introducing "safety", this being one of them:

"And as I said in a very earlier note, I want my family (and if it comes to that) to know my family and other road users are not put at risk because of my actions, simiply for my convenience."

To me and other a-framers your arguments to regard these combinations as illegal and unsafe are as sparse and unproven as you think our arguments are to say they are legal but you seem to want to spread some incorrect generalisations to an ever wider audience, giving the impression of an "evangelism" which does not fit with your avowed aim of information gathering in an informed two-sided debate. For the sake of the timid/terrified this should be rebutted.

Noel.


----------



## 97993 (Mar 5, 2006)

Purely to clarify this paticular statement


> My understanding of the MOT by the way is that if it is fitted to the car/van etc undergoing the MOT then it is subject to the MOT test.


 The MOT test has no interest in any towing equipment whatsoever, we would as a matter of course advise if spotted, something that was amiss 
Geo


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

Hi everyone. We have been here before on this forum, not always with a happy ending. Yes, A-frames are either probably or definitely illegal. No, they are not unsafe. Yes, you are most likely still insured when towing. No, there have been very few prosecutions (none in UK), and many people tow successfully in UK & France, and much of the rest of Europe. Nothing is likeley to change in the foreseeable future. I agree that it is much more risky if only one driver available. In which case, buy a trailer and off you go.


----------



## 92180 (May 1, 2005)

We have just returned from 5 weeks in Germany with a Smart on a trailer. 
We were not photographed by anyone and am now feeling quite left out. 

On the same site as us was another UK motorhome with an A frame and Suzuki on tow. Nobody photographed him either -- must have been a more decerning area. 

I have towed quite a bit with the trailer and now have the unloading down to under 5 minutes. Loading 10-12 minutes and that is with all wheels strapped. 

We did however see a UK motorhome with A frame being stopped at Calais just as you pass the turn off for the fuel station. 

Going back a long way in the thread to "I know a bloke" -- I do know a bloke from Holland who was fined 1500 euros in Spain for towing with an A frame and being over his gross weight. He actually told me that as he lent on his new Smart which was now on a trailer.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-Frame towing*

There is no emotion in my comments about the safety of my family, no more that is than I being accused of running a crusade against A-Frame users.

Regards "your arguments to regards these combinations as illegal and unsafe are as sparse and unproven as you think our arguments are to say they are"

I am not aware that I have claimed that they are unsafe, if I have then I am big enough to apologize to everyone who I have given that impression too, as for the other well lets see some of what I base my current decissions on, and therefore my decision not to purchase an A-Frame myself at this time.

*Department for Transport*

1 - "When an "A" frame is attached to a vehicle (e.g. a motor car) and towed by a motor vehicle (e.g. motorhome) we believe the "A" frame and car become a single unit" (ie a trailer)

2 - "Trailers having a combined axle mass not exceeding 750kg are not required to have brakes fitted. However, if the trailer (regardless of mass) is fitted with a braking system, then all brakes in that system must operate correctly. (I am not aware of any motor car which does not have brakes fitted)

3 - "Regulation 15 and 16 set out the braking requirements - including minimum braking efficiencies for trailer brakes" "the regulation requires the braking system to comply with the construction, fitting and performance requirements of European Community Directive 71/320/EEC

I have personally contacted a number of agencies fitting/selling A-frames and asked if they can confirm the ones they sell/fit meet this requirement, some of those did not bother to reply other could not provide that confirmation

*Practical Motorhome *(October 2006 issue), my letter reproduced by Noel in an earlier post - lets reproduce the beginning of the 2nd paragraph as it actually was in the e-mail I received from "Diamond Dave" and not what they printed in their magazine. "There are a couple of other points that, in my opinion, make A frame towing illegal"

*MMM *- August edition, responded to a reader advising it was their opinion they where probably illegal

*Which Motorcaraven*- September, "our stance has always been that it is probably illegal" relating to barked A-Frames

*CC* - "There can be no definitive position on this subject" " "However, it is probably illegal"

*CCC* - "As indicated previously, the C and CCC does not condone the use of A-frames of the type discussed previously, and would recommend against their use on Club Sites" before anyone raises hell with them they have also advised they do not prevent them being brought on their sites

*NTTA* - National and Trailers Towing Association, their web site leaves no one in any doubt on their position on this.

Now from my point of view I would say my arguments are hardly sparse , (perhaps still unproven) but it is the proof I and many other are seeking

Once before I agreed with the A-frame users to agree to agree to differ, I would like to prove their legal use, when done so I will quite probably buy one (there is that word probable again). At this time is for those who wish to buy/use A-frames to make up their own minds

Derek


----------



## 100512 (Aug 13, 2006)

I tow with an A frame and looked in to this prior to purchasing one. You mention the following.

1 - "When an "A" frame is attached to a vehicle (e.g. a motor car) and towed by a motor vehicle (e.g. motorhome) we believe the "A" frame and car become a single unit" (ie a trailer) 

2 - "Trailers having a combined axle mass not exceeding 750kg are not required to have brakes fitted. However, if the trailer (regardless of mass) is fitted with a braking system, then all brakes in that system must operate correctly. (I am not aware of any motor car which does not have brakes fitted) 

3 - "Regulation 15 and 16 set out the braking requirements - including minimum braking efficiencies for trailer brakes" "the regulation requires the braking system to comply with the construction, fitting and performance requirements of European Community Directive 71/320/EEC 

My Tow-A-Car frame and set up on the tow car meets all the requirements laid out by the DoT who are the regulatory body in this respect. The magazine articals you mention whilst being interesting however the magazines themselves are not regulatory bodys.

If the towing requirments of the DoT are met (and so far as can be seen they have been) and therefore the car towed in a legal manner where do you feel we are going wrong ?


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-Frame towing*

Dave, thank you

This is all I have been seeking, what your have reported

Please advise us all of the make of A-frame you have and I will contact the maufacturer and/or agents selling that make and ask them for site of the proof. If they meet that EEC regulation then they will have the documents of the tests etc.

Thanks you once more

Derek


----------



## 100512 (Aug 13, 2006)

The company are Car-a-tow who make the actual 'A' frame and the car brackets/electrics etc can be fitted by Southern Towing who I understand work with Car-a-tow. http://www.vesteweb.co.uk/southerntowing.htm. I fitted my own brackes etc supplied by the company. My brake tests were caried out at a local comercial garage to check the braking efficency.

Please let us know if you find somthing that I am unaware.

Hope this helps,


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-framing*

Dave, many thanks for the info

I will make enquiries and obviously let you know in due course

Again, regards Derek


----------



## 97993 (Mar 5, 2006)

IMO What Derrick is seeking is a "Certificate of Conformity" from the A frame manufacturer, 
1. To my knowledge No certificate has ever been issued

2. Because non of the A frames have ever been submitted to testing

3. There is no legal requirement to do so

4. I don't dought that many of the separate components have indeed got their individual test certificates or design approval, but as a combined unit those certificate mean nothing, and until the D.O.T get there Ar*e into gear that is how things will remain,
I also agree with the High court Judge who said in his summing up that unless the item had a contributory factor then that item in it,s self is not reason for Insurance company,s to refuse payouts 

this is not a new directive it was used many years ago when Insurance companys refused payment on the ground of a bald tyre or no Mot , when in fact neither of those items contributed to the incident and they were ordered to pay.

Davebl, despite you having done every thing to try and comply you are infact in the same boat as every one else, and i dont think for one moment Derrick will get his paperwork from that company either
Geo


----------



## 100512 (Aug 13, 2006)

Agreed, Id be interested to see what comes back. I too was in a dilemma about this so too the most practical approach that I thought reasonable. In comparing a trailer and an A frame since I needed a car whilst away and also prefer a motor home rather than caravan. (I have spend many happy years in a caravan too in my childhood) My view was this, I would be pleased if both trailer users and A frame users could add to the list of pros and cons. This is only intended as a starting point. 

Trailers 

Pros 

Legal 
Can reverse 'conventionally' 
Trailer can be used for other cars or non car loads. 

Cons 

Add significant extra weight and may cause train weight to be exceeded 
Adds to fuel costs 
Cumbersome to store 
Load (car) can more easily become detached from trailer. 

A frame 

Pros 

No significant extra weight to tow, therefore more fuel efficient 
Very unlikely to become detached from tow vehicle, therefore more safe to tow. 
Components of the cars brakes and wheels in the vast majority of cases made of higher quality component than a trailer. (Id be interested in profesionals view on this ?) 

Cons 
legal concerns (unproven) 
Can only be reverses a short distance. 

All practical common sense additions welcome, trying to avoid the legal licencing issues here for now.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

Geo said:


> IMO What Derrick is seeking is a "Certificate of Conformity" from the A frame manufacturer,
> 1. To my knowledge No certificate has ever been issued
> 
> 2. Because non of the A frames have ever been submitted to testing
> ...


I don't know of any caravan/trailer manufacturer either who will issue a C of C for their product's braking efficiency and that, as far as I can see, is Dereck's biggest concern. The D f T have stated that a-frames are legal as long as the braking and lighting requirements of a trailer are met but they do not require proof or have the test facilities to check C of Cs (the same applies to other trailers).

I believe there is far more chance of a caravan/trailer pushing a car into, say, a line of standing traffic than a small car pushing a motorhome and a resultant court case would have to examine the vehicles/trailers involved on a case by case basis and would not in any event generally pronounce on all types of any of these products as to their "legality".

Noel.


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

I believe the problem with conforming to construction & use regs relates to braking when reversing. It is a requirement that the vehicle & trailer can be reversed without manual intervention. Caravan and trailer brakes are manufactured so as not to operate in reverse, so are not applied by the over-run mechanism. Clearly with an A-frame with an over-run brake connected by cable to the towed car brake pedal, the brakes will be full on when reversing. To reverse, you have to get out and disconnect the cable. I can't see any other problems with the regs other than this. But am by no means confident of this.

There are no major problems with reversing with an A-frame as far a manoevering are concerned. Some cars are more prone to going to full lock in reverse than others. My punto is quite docile in this respect, but it is necessary to be careful to watch / feel for it happening. Then only a small pull forward straightens the wheels, and off you go again.

I use a Brake Buddy. It does not operate at low speeds, hence reversing no problem with respect to braking. This solves the braking/reversing problem, but introduces another. The brake buddy is not mechanical, but electrical / air. (an air reservoir, kept full by an electric pump, maintains pressure which is used to operate the brake pedal when retardation is detected). Undfer the regs, the handbrake on the trailer must operate by mechanical means. Unless this includes opening the door and pulling on the handbrake, this is the problem. The brake buddy can be braked from outside by pulling out the break-away cable, which applies the brakes full on. But this is an electrical mechanism, which does not conform. Of course, it is much more effective than a mechanical brake, and is also operated by cable if the car/a-frame becomes detached. So, it is a great unit, extremely safe, solves most of the issues, but almost certainly not legal. 

Finally, for me the biggest advantage of the a-frame is storage. it goes in a small locker in the rv, or in the boot of the car, or even under the rv, when not in use. also, there is a weight consideration. small car + trailer likely to be about 1200-1500kgs. small car + trailer presumably approx 500kgs less. frequently a problem with max. train weight, especially if tempted to carry extra gear in car on trailer. 

apols for long post, but i hope it is helpful to all. des.


----------



## 97993 (Mar 5, 2006)

I Agree, I should perhaps have stated I use A frames without any concerns at all 
Full recovery spec for business use and a Towtall for M/H use, both fully braked ,but as for there performance ,who knows???
Geo


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

des said:


> Clearly with an A-frame with an over-run brake connected by cable to the towed car brake pedal, the brakes will be full on when reversing. To reverse, you have to get out and disconnect the cable. des.


Des,

I do not for the life me understand this! When you press the brake pedal of your car, you brake, when you take your foot off, the sprung pedal returns and the brakes come off! If someone pushed you backwards after this procedure the brakes would not be on.

The over-run brake pedal connected cable on my a-frame exactly replicates this (ie does NOT pull the brakes on when reversing) and I can reverse a few yards in a straight line without problem (ie brakes on the car have reverted to "off") and without getting out the cab or disconnecting the cable.

The only limitation is the steering on the car and in any event D f T have stated there is no requirement to be able to reverse a trailer, which is a good job considering most people are hopeless at this!

Noel.


----------



## 100512 (Aug 13, 2006)

This is interesting as I was not aware the D f T have stated there is no requirement to reverse, I had thought there was a requirement. Please could you advise where this information is published or available.

As you say most people are hopless with it. In about 10 years of caravaning and subsiqueently one year motorhomeing I have only HAD to reverse once.

The other issues, depending on the specification of the trailer of course, how many wheels etc my guess is that the car brakes are going to be as good as a single axel trailer. I might be pursuaded to believe that a twin axel trailer has improved breaking action due to more rubber on the road but there is the additional weight of the trailer to consider too.


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

i have an a-frame from chris cox, with an over-run unit fitted. when you reverse, this is compressed, applying the brake. can't work out how to avoid this. do let me know! my rv has a huge overhang, and i am able to use this to "steer" the towed car to some extent when reversing. bit of a bitch, but possible. des


----------



## 97993 (Mar 5, 2006)

Any one thought about putting car in front and pushing it?? that would clear up all the towing abnormalities, and open up a new topic too!!!! :lol: 
Geo


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

des said:


> i have an a-frame from chris cox, with an over-run unit fitted. when you reverse, this is compressed, applying the brake. can't work out how to avoid this. do let me know! my rv has a huge overhang, and i am able to use this to "steer" the towed car to some extent when reversing. bit of a bitch, but possible. des


Des,

Interesting! All I can say is that my cable only pulls on the brakes on a _forward_ over-run/compression. I've had a look but without dismantling think that there is some sort of ratchet/cam/lock which flies off on the shock/jerk of initial forward compression but does not on reversing/gentle pushing so does not compress and move the cable to apply the brakes. A-frame is a Towtal.

Noel.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

Geo said:


> Any one thought about putting car in front and pushing it?? that would clear up all the towing abnormalities, and open up a new topic too!!!! :lol:
> Geo


Yeh! Nice one and a cow catcher or snow plough too!

Noel.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

davebl said:


> This is interesting as I was not aware the D f T have stated there is no requirement to reverse, I had thought there was a requirement. Please could you advise where this information is published or available.


Apparently Derek rang the Road Safety section of the D f T and they said (quote from letters in Oct Practical Motorhome) "We are not aware of a regulation in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 which states you must be able to reverse a trailer."

Good job that the RAF didn't know about this when they trained me to reverse a tractor and various bombers and fighters into a tightly spaced hangar!

Noel.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Reversing a trailer*

Dear All

Noel is correct, (though I did not phone them I emailed them).

The D f T responded to me accordingly:-

Thanks you for your enquiry to the Road Safety section of this Department .........etc etc

1 A-frames can be used for other purposes in addition to towing a broken down vehicle
2 Trailers do not require brakes if they are below 750kg laden, however, if the trailer is fitted with brakes then the brakes must work
3 Your statements in your third point are correct
4 We are not aware of a regulation in the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) regulations 1986 which states you must be able to revers a trailer.

They further e-mails to me a copy of two facts sheets, the one relevant is "Note on A-Frames and Dollies" October 2005, this fact sheet should be available from [email protected]

Trust this helps

Derek


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Food for thought*

That many of us would be interested in bottoming out this subject, does anyone know how an A-frame manufacturer would go about getting a certificate of comformity.

Does anyone have "one on one" contact with one of these manufacturers, ie is even one watching these web sites.

If so advise us what is required and what a cost may be, perhaps other members would be interested in donating a small amount in order a fund can be created to put their equipment through such testing, if one opens this I would be prepared to put in

Derek


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Food for thought*



Decca said:


> That many of us would be interested in bottoming out this subject, does anyone know how an A-frame manufacturer would go about getting a certificate of comformity.
> 
> Does anyone have "one on one" contact with one of these manufacturers, ie is even one watching these web sites.
> 
> ...


Derek,

From my days in an RAF support authority writing technical specifications for equipment purchases I can say that C of C's are provided/self issued by _the manufacturers/suppliers themselves _ to certify that what they are providing conforms to what you the customer (or regulatory authority) has specified/wants.

As you are too small a customer individually to go to the significant even huge cost in monetary and resource terms of writing and issuing a C of C for and there is no regulatory authority who requires it, no manufacturer will give you one. As I keep saying, the trailer/caravan manufacturers do not issue them either.

You really have to assess and weigh the facts for yourself and not cut your nose off to spite your face in this and go for a set-up which [/I]can_ meet all current requirements in braking, lighting and correct weight maximums and distribution. Then _you_ *will* be legal and no one will be able to prove different in the very unlikely event that towing on an a-frame is cited as a contributory factor in an accident. But please stop damming all a-frames illegal to a wider and generally more ignorant audience, who have not had the benefit of this detailed discussion.

Noel._


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-frame towing*

Noel, you and I agreed for our differences quite some time ago to agree to agree to differ.

That however does not mean I still cannot express my views when ever anyone open this subject, I will offer those views either way, you can be assured I will provide the positive answers if I get them as well as the negatives.

I am sorry if you belive I am damming all A-frames as illegal at this time, my own personal beliefs at this time is that they are (I stress my own personal beliefs). However even though they are my own beliefs, should I not be able to express my views as you and users of A-frames are, on this site through these postings and/or any magazine printing the content of any e-mail which I may have sent them in my quest to seek answers.

After all those magazines are free to publish those letters and I am sure they would have not have done, if they themselves did not think it was a subject worthy of comments and/or if I where the only person who had raised this subject with them. And not forgetting they are also free to publish any editors comments at the end of the print.

Those a little more ignorant or new to M/H use can then make their own informed discission as you require.

As I have posted before, I whole heartedly agree you pays your money you takes your chance, I prefer not to take risks.

Derek


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A-frame towing*



Decca said:


> Noel, you and I agreed for our differences quite some time ago to agree to agree to differ.
> 
> That however does not mean I still cannot express my views when ever anyone open this subject, I will offer those views either way, you can be assured I will provide the positive answers if I get them as well as the negatives.
> 
> ...


Derek,

My objection to your letter to PM was that the tone throughout was completely pedantic, dogmatic and misleading and gave the impression that your line and statements were correct, definitive, authoritive and not merely your "personal belief" and open to debate and interpretation.

Noel.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-Frame*

Noel

And the letter you say you have sent to PM isn't any of those things either

Derek


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

Thanks noel. I'll contact towtal about this. bill is always so helpful! have just read the information sheet referred to above, and there it mentions that reversing may be a problem with an over-run unit, so i am not unique in this respect. i have printed out the above-mentioned d of t note, and will carry it in the rv in future. des


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-frame towing*

Des, for your complete info

The email I recieved was dated and timed Wed 19 Jul 12:03 and received from Killiam Smith, DfT - Transport Techonology and Standards

And its Derek by the way


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A-Frame*



Decca said:


> Noel
> 
> And the letter you say you have sent to PM isn't any of those things either
> 
> Derek


Derek,

Fair comment but I guess to rebut such a scare-mongering (why introduce the threat of site-owners refusing access?), discouraging, myopic, generalised, in some points plain incorrect, out-of-date and strongly one-sided letter, I had to be!

Noel.

"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-Frame towing*

Noel, it is not scare mongering.

The site owners would indeed be opening themselves to legal action by the inoccent party if one of the combinations with dubious credentials was involved in an accident on their site with that inoccent party, if the said inoccent party found they could not claim from the user of the combination as it turned out because there was no insurance cover.

The CCC have already advised me they would expect the inoccent party to make a claim from the MIB. The MIB are unlikely to pay towards a claim on private property. Therefore to cover their damages that inoccent person would have no option open to them but to sue the CCC, in this example as the CCC have already admited they feel A-Frame use is probably illegal. I think they would have difficulty defending it.

For avoidance of doubt this is not detremental to the good name of the CCC and in no way prejudice to them, it is an example, and I say I think they would have difficulty defending it.

Noel this forum is not (as far as I am aware) for besmirching anyone or trying to do a character assasination on anyone, which you seem intent on wanting to do.

You call it as you find it and I will continue to call it as I find it, and within that I will if I feel necessary to the moment give my reasonsing behind that. If you feel this is emotional, then sorry read it as you wish.

As I have said you pays your money you makes your choice.

I will drive my investigations as I see fit and share my views and or information, and/or respond to enquiries I see for information on this subject, either way with those who seek it. As I am sure you will, that is called democracy.

Derek


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A-Frame towing*



Decca said:


> Noel, it is not scare mongering.
> 
> The site owners would indeed be opening themselves to legal action by the inoccent party if one of the combinations with dubious credentials was involved in an accident on their site with that inoccent party, if the said inoccent party found they could not claim from the user of the combination as it turned out because there was no insurance cover.
> 
> ...


Derek,

You are confusing safety with (at worst) a possible legal technical infringement by _some_ (not by most and certainly not by my combination) a-framers. Most reasonable people agree a-frame towing by relatively large motorhome/small car is hugely safer than a very large proportion of car/caravan outfits. I AM insured to tow my car on an a-frame and most other a-framers are too (I have it in writing, just regarded as any other trailer).

It is not the job or remit of site owners to regulate the fine detail or search for possible infingements to the plethora of road traffic and technical regualtions but to remove as far as practicable and possible obviously dangerous practices, people or vehicles which will endanger other campers. They are not lawyers thank God, if they were no-one would get on their sites.

It is nonsense to suggest that site owners are liable for actions or disputes between other parties over which they have no control and I am sure there will be a disclaimer notice somewhere spelling that out!

Airing your provocative and largely incorrect views is absolutely fine by me but the problem is that you present them as authoritive facts to a non-experienced/expert audience, which _does_ smack of scare-mongering and the democratic thing is to counter that, reassure people and add a bit of perspective.

Noel.


----------



## Don_Madge (May 1, 2005)

I have not followed the thread closely but what I cars I seen being towed on a A frame have all been over the 750kg MAM limit, I admit the unladen weight is under 750kg but the MAM is not.

Don


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

Don Madge said:


> I have not followed the thread closely but what I cars I seen being towed on a A frame have all been over the 750kg MAM limit, I admit the unladen weight is under 750kg but the MAM is not.
> 
> Don


Don,

Bit of red herring this! D f T / EEC regs say that trailers over 750 kg MAM must use a _braked_ a-frame but they also say if a "trailer" has brakes fitted they must be operable during a tow. Therefore, as all cars have brakes, if being towed as a trailer, you must be able to operate them; so only _braked_ a-frames should be used with cars as trailers irrespective of the MAM! As long as the the braking, lighting and weight train regs are met then an a-frame combo is legal (the D f T have said so) and you DO NOT have to plonk a car over 750kg MAM on a trailer!

Noel.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-Frame*

Noel

"I AM insured to tow my car" 

I would be rather disappointed if you didn't, you believe your A-Frame meets the necessary legislation, great that is all I and others are seeking.

Provide us the proof, which is not speculative, that it meets the necessary legislation and the arguments are closed.

Not long ago in the process of a position I held (Customer Services/Relations Manager for one of the Motor Manufacturers) we had a presentation from an expert in the laws of liability. Disclaimer notices no longer have the power they used too, for example we where informed that in an establishment if such a notice existed near say their coat hooks and your coat was stolen, you would have the power to make a claim against the establishment. By nature of the fact they supply the coat hooks for the use of their clientele they are liable. It is just that no one in the UK has started using the power of those laws yet, and the legal fraternity would warn against the costs of such actions, balanced against the cost of the coat given in this example.

I believe I have been providing a balance to the two sides of this argument, I have already provided details of the fact I have been informed by the DfT that A-Frames can be used for other purposes than recovering broken down cars (provided they meet the other necessary legislation) and I have already provided details of them advising me there is no legal requirement to reverse a trailer. I will continue to provide that balance for which ever side of the argument I obtain proof for.

On the other side I have seen nothing but hearsayand peoples opinions to the effect of the use of A-Frames, you advise I am airing largely incorrect views, I could make the same claim of you, but hey I am here to debate points not have a go at you.

to all reading this I am sorry to be repetitive, but here goes as posted many time before, I am (and I am sure others) are simply asking for proof, if you have it, post it.

Derek


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

hi derek. apols if i addressed the wrong person! my only point regarding reversing with an a-frame is not with regard to the ability to reverse. it is that the usual braking system (over-run) prevents operation in reverse without manual intervention (disconnecting the cable), contrary to eu construction & use regs.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-Frame*

Hi des

Sorry cannot provide you any info on that one, but I am sure others will

Because some had been advising that A-frames where illegal because, in effect they where advising you could not reverse, ie the caster/camber locked up after a few feet.

I was glad to put this to bed by advising that the DfT had informed me that they where unaware of any legislation that said you had to be able to reverse a trailer.

Derek


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

have just checked with bill at towtal. usual great response (within minutes). braked a-frame from towtal does not apply brakes when reversing. would love to know how it works. ??? des.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

des said:


> have just checked with bill at towtal. usual great response (within minutes). braked a-frame from towtal does not apply brakes when reversing. would love to know how it works. ??? des.


Des,

Further to my previous post on this, I've had another look and there appears to be a "double" piston ie a sleeve within a sleeve and only the outer sleeve hits the brake cable cam on forward motion, this must "lock" on reverse motion and the inner sleeve only moves to compress the shock absorber/piston but misses the brake cable cam.

Clever stuff and another feature towards fully implementing the required braking directives and being totally legal. Soon only Derek out of the world population will still believe otherwise!

There will never be C of C's or "proof" because, as in any other trailer towing or even driving solo there are too many variables/adjustments requiring input by the user/driver. You cannot legislate for idiots but H & S keep on trying.

We still have some remnants of freedom in this country (in spite of the best efforts of the EU, our governments and the dullard automatons) and the default is "yes" or "innocent" until proven otherwise unlike other juristictions where it is always "no" until you bribe someone!

Noel.


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

thanks noel. des


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A-Frame*



Decca said:


> On the other side I have seen nothing but hearsayand peoples opinions to the effect of the use of A-Frames, you advise I am airing largely incorrect views, I could make the same claim of you, but hey I am here to debate points not have a go at you.
> 
> Derek


Derek,

Not hearsay but experience and tried and tested use of the product over 1000's of miles and 18 months use, examination/adjustment of the product/setup, various regs and seeing/experiencing for _ourselves_ that they are, in fact, fully met in my (and others) setup.

I cannot see what part/s of the regulations, _in particular_, you believe I and others are not complying with and what expertise leads you to this conclusion?

You said to PM "If the weight exceeds 750Kg the load must be transported on a trailer" Incorrect ".....but what I have found that even with this work done the use of a-frames is _highly_ likely to be illegal...... Incorrect . You ask for proof of legality, you give us your proof of illegality please! Did you ask for proof of complete legality when you bought your car and Motorhome? I you had I think the answers might have disappointed you there also!

Noel.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-frame*

Noel

Tried and tested does not mean it meets the necessary directive, its merely your view and your opinion and therefore your proof of legality is no more equal as you say my comments are.

Once more you appear to be creating more assumptions to try and support your arguments, you claim "what expertise leads you to this conclusion", please do read things correctly, I do not remember ever claiming to be an expert.

However it would seem you are claiming to be one "and seeing/experiencing for ourselves that they are, in fact, fully met in my (and others) setup".

If you are the expert who is able to claim, without testing, that you have the proof yours meets the necessary braking efficiencies, then we need you to put your "expertise" forward. You can assist one of the A-Frame producers in getting the necessary documentation sorted.

Do please read the letters and posts properly Noel, stop cherry picking to try and support your arguments against me and do stop trying to claim I have claimed something I have not. However as you keep insisting on using this forum to have a go at me, lets look at the sentences you have picked out.

The first sentence- "but what _(note no "have" in my letter)_ I found is_(no word that)_ even with this work done the use of A-frames is highly likely to be illegal"

The word likely in my dictionary means probable (there is that word again that everyone keeps using)

Now accepting the direction of my letter was enquiring about the "probable" legality of A-Frames and that the start of the paragraph you have cherry picked these sentences from was on unbraked trailers, the second sentence you chose to quote was referring to loads of 750kg on braked trailers.

The second sentence you have chosen to re produce was even wrong "If the weight exceeds 750Kg the load must be transported on a trailer" you seem to have missed out the word braked (it was just before trailer).

I am tiring of this and will not be responding to your particular posts any longer, it has become rather tedious and I have better things to do than play table tennis with you.

Once more (in fear of repeating myself yet again) do your thing, post you comments and I will mine.

Derek


----------



## 92180 (May 1, 2005)

All very interesting stuff. 

I went a more straight forward route to my choice. 

I phoned VOSA and asked about using an A Frame. I was given the view that although tolerated it was potentially a problem area. Could be seen as illegal. But at this time they were not enforcing any EU regs. 

Then asked about a trailer , fully legal no question. 

I have a Smart Fortwo, although the gearbox is manual with electronic clutch actuation I thought better of driving shafts and gears with a potential lack of lubrication. I didn't like the thought of the wheels turning if I hit a big bump - unlikely but could happen - so I chose the trailer for peace of mind. 

Gross weight, I calculated that I had the spare capacity to have the car on a trailer - so that question was answered. 

My chosen holiday destination is Germany - so not wishing to engage in any legal conversations at the side of the Autobhan I went for a trailer. 

I have a place to store my trailer and find it easy to load and unload, simple to strap down , but useless to reverse and I was alway ace with the caravan. 

I have seen A frames and brake buddies being setup and just prefer the trailer. 

My choice and I am happy with it. 

If the A frame is fully accepted I have no doubt it is a super bit of kit and that the suppliers are taking all possible care with the product they supply. 

Please let it finish on a positive and friendly note. 

Several times the A Frame issue has been raised and every time it seems to become pedantic reg quoting and eventually belligerent comments. If it is illegal the authorities should act, if they are inclined not to bother then thats's that. it is as yet unproven (Scots Law) 

MHF the friendly forum.


----------



## TonyHunt (Oct 10, 2005)

The A frame on my Vauxhall Agila fitted by Car-a-tow of Poole also reverses no problem as far as the brakes are concerned. The problem of reversing any distance without the cars front wheels locking sideways can be overcome in a tight situation such as backing out of a line of fuel pumps that you suddenly discover have run out of diesal. All you have to do is turn your cars ignition key back from the first click which locks the wheels while you reverse backwards in a straight line. You can then get your passenger to reset the key at position 1 and drive into the next bay. Have got out of a few sticky places like this. The other thing I have done which has proved a godsend on more than one occasion is I have fitted a jockey wheel to the frame. This enables you to quickly unclip and drive backwards on the jockey wheel. Had to do this in Switzerland when we drove into a supermarket garage and was confronted with a 2m barrier at the checkout.
We drove 2000 miles round Germany, France, Belgium, switzerland, Luxembourg and Holland with no trouble at all from the police. Lots passed us on the way but didnt seem bothered at all. The biggest problem we had was getting away from the hoards of locals at every campsite who insisted on poking around under our bonnet and taking endless photos, boy were they jealous.
Car-a-tow mentioned last time I visited that they have had many enquiries from french garages asking about the system. It can only be a matter of time.
The freedom an A frame offers you over having to worry about a trailer and where to put it on site and at home is just brilliant. When on site I have found the perfect place to stow my A frame + jockey wheel is in front of my Ducatos passenger seat. It fits a treat and I can still swivel the seat round. Saves having to carry it round in the boot of the car.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-Frames*

Asgard/Tony, thank you

Contrary to that which was being posted, I have never claimed A-Frames are not safe. Indeed I myself used one for possibly far more miles than the majority of M/H users ever will when I was a patrol "breakdown" driver for the RAC in Manchester, it was at that time called a sol-o-matic. Neither have I claimed they are illegal.

I have constantly advised I would love to have one, but not based on the information I have researched or been provided. As based on that I belive they are likely (probably) to be illegal even with the necessary brake conversation. I need my licence for my work, I cannot afford to put that in a place of risk, even if it is calculated (no I do not have any points on it at present).

That being said, I will continue to seek the proof I need, and I will post my findings for those interested, either way.

I have already posted two pieces of information "on the side" of those who use them. There was a perceived myth by some that A-Frames where illegal because you could not reverse with them, I have posted info from the DfT which advises they are unaware of any legal requirement to reverse a trailer. Another myth was that they could only be used for recovering a vehicle from a place of breakdown, again the DfT (in writing, an e-mail) advised A-Frames could be used for other purposes provided they met the necessary legislation.

Hopefully Tony, I will come into possession of the information from which I will be confident I can join you

Regards Derek


----------



## TonyHunt (Oct 10, 2005)

Surely the type of frame that the AA / RAC use are totally different to the A frames we use. I understood they were meant to be used at no more than 20 mph for recovery only.
There are some cheaper versions of an A frame advertised in the press also that I wouldnt like to use personally.


----------



## 100390 (Aug 7, 2006)

*A-Frames*

Tony

You are possibly right, when I worked for the RAC it was too many moons ago for me to admit my age, they where very heavy cumbersome and actually was just placed against the front bumpers with pads and chains coupled them round the vehicle suspension.

Can,t remember the 20mph rule though, I can certainly remember doing a recovery with an Escort van from Manchester to North Wales, doubt if I kept to the 20mph ruld

Del


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

*Re: A-frame*



Decca said:


> Noel
> 
> Tried and tested does not mean it meets the necessary directive, its merely your view and your opinion and therefore your proof of legality is no more equal as you say my comments are.
> 
> ...


Derek,

"Tried and tested does not mean it meets the necessary directive, its merely your view and your opinion and therefore your proof of legality is no more equal as you say my comments are."

But the evidence and considerable experience of use is NOT merely "hearsay" as you dismiss it. 

"Once more you appear to be creating more assumptions to try and support your arguments, you claim \"what expertise leads you to this conclusion\", please do read things correctly, I do not remember ever claiming to be an expert."

No, but you have presented "views" unqualified as such, to PM readers and others.

"However it would seem you are claiming to be one \"and seeing/experiencing for ourselves that they are, in fact, fully met in my (and others) setup\".
If you are the expert who is able to claim, without testing, that you have the proof yours meets the necessary braking efficiencies, then we need you to put your \"expertise\" forward. You can assist one of the A-Frame producers in getting the necessary documentation sorted."

At last we have your specific concern. Braking efficiency is an infinite variable from car to car, setup to setup, adjustment to adjustment, journey to journey and even driver to driver. How can a maker issue "proof" or a C of C except as a one-off which would have absolutely no relevance to you or any one else and be worthless? All I can say, from experience, is that when I brake I can feel the car braking also and considerably assisting the M/H. As for "necessary" documentation, there is none and why you need it when the D f T do not is your problem alone and not one which makes us "illegal". 

"Do please read the letters and posts properly Noel, stop cherry picking to try and support your arguments against me and do stop trying to claim I have claimed something I have not. However as you keep insisting on using this forum to have a go at me, lets look at the sentences you have picked out.
The first sentence- \"but what (note no \"have\" in my letter) I found is (no word that) even with this work done the use of A-frames is highly likely to be illegal\"
The word likely in my dictionary means probable (there is that word again that everyone keeps using)"

The word "highly" (which is the one I italicised) means much more than probable. You also claimed "I also discovered that the use of A-frames is actually illegal". Very "enquiring" that!

"The second sentence you have chosen to re produce was even wrong "If the weight exceeds 750Kg the load must be transported on a trailer\" you seem to have missed out the word braked (it was just before trailer)."

Braked or unbraked is irrelevant, PM readers "must" NOT have to transport their car on a trailer, braked or otherwise.

"I am tiring of this and will not be responding to your particular posts any longer, it has become rather tedious and I have better things to do than play table tennis with you.
Once more (in fear of repeating myself yet again) do your thing, post you comments and I will mine."

I also am heartily sick of this correspondence, it is more than tedious to everyone on this forum I'm sure and reminds me of a small unconfident child needing the reassurance and encouragement of parents to go ahead and do something which will not involve some chastisement.

However, as long as you keep accusing us of illegality, particularly to an undecided and largely unknowing audience who have not had the benefit (?!) of this forum, I will keep on rebutting it, period.

Noel.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

TonyHunt said:


> The A frame on my Vauxhall Agila fitted by Car-a-tow of Poole also reverses no problem as far as the brakes are concerned. The problem of reversing any distance without the cars front wheels locking sideways can be overcome in a tight situation such as backing out of a line of fuel pumps that you suddenly discover have run out of diesal. All you have to do is turn your cars ignition key back from the first click which locks the wheels while you reverse backwards in a straight line. You can then get your passenger to reset the key at position 1 and drive into the next bay. Have got out of a few sticky places like this. The other thing I have done which has proved a godsend on more than one occasion is I have fitted a jockey wheel to the frame. This enables you to quickly unclip and drive backwards on the jockey wheel. Had to do this in Switzerland when we drove into a supermarket garage and was confronted with a 2m barrier at the checkout.
> We drove 2000 miles round Germany, France, Belgium, switzerland, Luxembourg and Holland with no trouble at all from the police. Lots passed us on the way but didnt seem bothered at all. The biggest problem we had was getting away from the hoards of locals at every campsite who insisted on poking around under our bonnet and taking endless photos, boy were they jealous.
> Car-a-tow mentioned last time I visited that they have had many enquiries from french garages asking about the system. It can only be a matter of time.
> The freedom an A frame offers you over having to worry about a trailer and where to put it on site and at home is just brilliant. When on site I have found the perfect place to stow my A frame + jockey wheel is in front of my Ducatos passenger seat. It fits a treat and I can still swivel the seat round. Saves having to carry it round in the boot of the car.


Tony,

Many thanks for the brilliant reversing and jockey wheel tips, although on reasonable surfaces I have not yet needed to get out of the cab (lazy git!) for the few feet I have needed, or indeed shift the missus!

Glad you had a good trip and your experiences mirrored ours in Germany (which was the original post to this marathon forum).

As you say, hopefully only a matter of time before this wonderful British invention will lead the continent to catch up!

Regards,

noel.


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

i have a jockey wheel on my a-frame too. chris cox fitted it for about £25! 2 advantages - easy disconnection as per tony, but also, by jacking up the jockey wheel a little higher, very easy to drive onto towbar & position to just drop the coupling onto the tow ball. sure beats trying to back onto it. des.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

des said:


> i have a jockey wheel on my a-frame too. chris cox fitted it for about £25! 2 advantages - easy disconnection as per tony, but also, by jacking up the jockey wheel a little higher, very easy to drive onto towbar & position to just drop the coupling onto the tow ball. sure beats trying to back onto it. des.


Des,

Is this for one person connection where you postion M/H to car? I get the missus to drive the car to the M/H, it only takes seconds and I can hold the a-frame up for that long! I can see advantages to having a jockey wheel though in either case.

Noel.


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

yes, that's right noel. i raise the jockey wheel high enough to see the top of the coupling, just above the height of the tow ball. then just drive onto to the rv. unwind the jockey wheel, jump on the tow bar, and it's done. once had problem coupling, because i forgot to raise the jockey wheel first! only took me about 10 minutes to figure it out! but it was an early start. cheers. des.


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

Great tip about using the steering lock to reverse, hope I never have to use it 

I assume the jockey wheel is removeable to make it easier to store. This makes another chore to do and adds to the weight to heave about.  I think I prefer my way HERE

peedee


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

nice one peedee! yes, j/w removable. not happy about points to attach hooks on my bonnet to emulate your solution, but yes, same result. des.


----------



## 90430 (May 1, 2005)

Hi,

I found just this: A manufacturer in the Netherlands for A-Trailers:

http://www.cte.nu

It shall be possible to get a special approval by the German TÜV.


----------



## SueandRoger (Apr 14, 2008)

Hi All

We are off to Italy next week with the TOAD and are going to 'do' the 'Romantic Road' before crossing the Brennan Pass to spend a couple of weeks in the Dolomites. Whilst at the Hamble Spring Bank Holiday this weekend someone mentioned that they had 'heard' that someone had recently had a problem with the German police, been fined and made to un-hitch until clear of Germany. Has anyone any 'First Hand' knowledge of this problem or has anyone recently been through Germany and Austria with a TOAD and not had a problem?

Regards Roger


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

we have just returned from netherlands, germany & luxembourg. no problems with a-frame. as usual, stirred up lots of interest.

des


----------



## DJP (May 9, 2005)

We went to Italy last year via France into Italy, back via Austria, Germany, luxembourg, Belguim, France.
We have also been to Spain, Andora, Croatia, Slovenia. 
ALL with a toad and without any problems creating lots of interest on the way from locals and other motorhomers.


----------



## SueandRoger (Apr 14, 2008)

Thanks Des and DJB, that is very reassuring. I will let you know if I have any problems.

Regards, Roger


----------



## SueandRoger (Apr 14, 2008)

My apologies, finger hit the wrong button I meant DJP.

Roger


----------



## lookback (Dec 4, 2005)

SueandRoger said:


> Hi All
> 
> We are off to Italy next week with the TOAD and are going to 'do' the 'Romantic Road' before crossing the Brennan Pass to spend a couple of weeks in the Dolomites. Whilst at the Hamble Spring Bank Holiday this weekend someone mentioned that they had 'heard' that someone had recently had a problem with the German police, been fined and made to un-hitch until clear of Germany. Has anyone any 'First Hand' knowledge of this problem or has anyone recently been through Germany and Austria with a TOAD and not had a problem?
> 
> Regards Roger


Hi Roger are you back from your maraton tour and did you have any problems with your A Frame? My only problem was that the offside front wheel of the toad kept heating up. (Going to the garage on Friday for investigation)
Ian


----------



## mgb (Dec 4, 2008)

I used an A frame to to a Smart car on a recent trip
It did attract a lot of interest from fellow mhers but zilch from the police
I guess they thought that the Smart car was driving too close!
A Dutch guy told me that the A Frame principle is in widespread usethroughout NATO as a quick recovery techique for broken down vehicles, i.e it is quick, easy and cheap, the very reasons why I use one
Happy Wheels
MGB


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

We towed through (a small bit of) France, Belgium, Germany & Switzerland last month, avoiding autobahns in Deutschland.

We had no problems with Police, passed a few, albeit they were mainly tied up dealing with convoys of tractors (Europe-wide farmers complaining about milk prices).

Attracted quite a bit of interest from locals, even had a few photos taken of the setup.

We did, however, have problems with the Smart itself. Clicking from front wheel that stopped on braking. According to local MB dealer in Switzerland had warped discs and broken suspension, £800 to fix...so got Britannia to repatriate (guess if I'd been using a trailer I could have brought it back myself). Back at MB dealer in UK, they confirmed what I'd suspected that it was simply brakepad loose in the caliper, no safety issue, fixed within 10 mins by re-siting spring holding brakepad in caliper - nothing wrong with suspension. Per a post I made a week or two ago, actually got better fuel consumption _with_ Smart on the back as I tended to drive with lighter right foot than without.


----------

