Sankey trailer secondary linkage

Hi folks,

Our Sankey 3/4 widetrack has no breakaway cable or secondary linkage. I've heard that with a NATO hitch with the securing clip fitted we don't need either and in any case the legal requirement post-dates the construction of the trailer.

If my local friendly police officer challenges me to back up that statement can anyone tell me where I can find it in official print?

pointless if the R clip is in the nato hitch, wild horses wont open that jaw , thats the prefered safety and how it was designed to be used .

in my opinion they are a lot safer than a 50mm ball hitch , wer you pulled over ??

90truckcab said:

pointless if the R clip is in the nato hitch, wild horses wont open that jaw , thats the prefered safety and how it was designed to be used .

in my opinion they are a lot safer than a 50mm ball hitch , wer you pulled over ??

Click to expand...

Originally it wasn't any sort of R-Clip - it was a RIDICULOUS long skinny split-pin, that rusted in no time, and believe me guys, I was an officer commanding a transport squadron RCT, and we had trailers falling off NATO hitches quite often.

The split pin was about eighth inch fat, by about three inches long, and very hard to get. We used welding wire in them as often as we used split pins.

There is a design flaw in those hitches, that when (not IF) the hitch gets a bit stiff with mud rust and crap, the continual battering of a ring hitch inside the jaw tends to cause the latch to lift in the upper jaw, and in so doing it applies shear stresses to the silly split-pin - supposing there's a split-pin there in the first place, which usually there was not. Sooner or later the latch unlocks, and the upper part of the jaw is free to open ...

Some clots also ran the hitch in ROTATION FREE setting, and upside down ... a recipe for disaster.

These hitches may appear big and tough, but so did Frank Bruno.

Charles

am just going on my experience with sankeys and nato hitches, iv used one now most days for 4 years, carting heavy building materials and scaffolding around with no probs at all

Hi 90truckcab and CharlesY,

Thanks for your replies guys.

No, I've not been pulled over yet but the police do pull caravans over and they often have a poor or incorrect understanding of the legislation as it applies to towing so I want to be prepared if it happens.

Charles, the experiences you describe will ensure we check our NATO hitch regularly! It's free and moves well at the moment and has the R-clip.

From the point of view of a 28 year serving copper, the way we applied it on the road is:

Trailer brakes:

1. Every trailer over 750kgs Maximum Gross Weight must have brakes. Gross of course, is the weight that the trailer and its load are not allowed to exceed, otherwise it's overweight.

2. Every part of every braking system fitted to a vehicle (not motorvehicle, so that includes trailers) must be kept correctly maintained and adjusted when in use on a road.

3. There must be some means of the brakes being applied along with the towing vehicle brakes, either by the driver or attendant (!), or mechanically. (Generally this means by air in big trailers or over-run system on smaller trailers).

4. There must be some means of the trailer brakes being applied, should it become detached from the towing vehicle. Generally this is a cable/chain which yanks the brakes on and then snaps, or by loss of air pressure in artics etc.

5. The trailer must be 'immobilised' (big rock under the wheel, wheel clamp, welded to the fence, over-run system on a ratchet) when parked on a road and not attached to a towing vehicle.

Hitches: Most problems/defects would be dealt with (by Plod) as an offence of 'Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition'. Clearly, this is wide-open to interpretation, but basically, if it's not safe, then it's dangerous. Even I as a copper can understand that!! It's age, build/registration/import/first use/anniversary date is irrelevant. If it is in a 'Dangerous Condition'.......................

Of course, there are also Regs, concerning the design, efficiency, and testing of brakes, hitches, trailers etc that are enforced by VOSA, not by Plod. Your local Goods Vehicle Testing Station should be able to help with advice. Police (usually) use Construction and Use Regulations; VOSA use Plating and Testing, C & U, Goods Vehicles, and all sorts of Euro-law. Ask them.

Hi Itsnotajeep (love that name)

Thank you, it's good to hear a point of view from someone who might have been part of team pulling trailers over. I tow a caravan more than the Sankey and the problems in recent years have come from the increasingly complicated rules about laden, unladen and shipping weigts allowed versus towing vehicle kerbside weights, I'm not surprised there are some strange interpretations made at times.

As for the Sankey your thoughts are very encouraging, common sense about safety is always welcome. A fully laden Sankey 3/4 wide properly laden should come in below 1500Kg, so the following from the DoT states " For trailers up to 1500kg laden weight it is permitted to use a secondary coupling, which in the event of separation (NOT failure) of the main coupling will retain the trailer attached to the towing vehicle, prevent the nose of the trailer from touching the ground and provide some residual steering of the trailer. Above 1500 kg laden weight the trailer must be fitted with a device to stop the trailer automatically in the event of separation (NOT failure) of the main coupling and this is normally achieved by a breakaway cable attached to the parking brake mechanism - the trailer becomes detached from the towing vehicle." From this I have assumed a secondary coupling is what would be required as a breakaway cable becomes required for laden weights over 1500Kg.

Also, the Act was introduced in 1986 (I think?) and is not retrospective to older trailers, so technically no cable is needed at all. But personally I'd be happier with a safe rig than just meeting a legal technicality and a secondary linkage is much easier to fit than a breakaway cable and if that meets the law that's fine with me.

Is this how you understand the Act or have I got it wrong?

Yep, that's now I would see it. Obviously, I've tried to keep the above to a readable size but, yep, what you say is right. 'Scuse me for a mo, I'll just hang my anorak up.........that's better.

The problem wiv lots of traffic law is that it's been updated many times since the red flag days, but it's just Too Difficult for the govt to remove all the old stuff, so they just add another layer onto it.

That's why there's two places in the C & U Regs that cover Dangerous Condition: Reg 40 (A) and Reg 100. However, one carries 3 penalty points and the other carries none. Make sure that Plod books you for the penalty-free one!!

Give me a day or two and I'll look up the relevant bit of law. You could have a look at

Office of Public Sector Information

but we have it translated to plain(ish) English.

Thanks Itsnotajeep, I'd appreciate being able to read regs in plain English. I look forward to seeing them.