A Frame Disaster

[SSILVO]

Nothing to do with trailers? It was an Ifor Williams flat bed trailer on the back of a 4x4! With another on it’s back!

As someone else has said ...the reason for the accident was that he fell asleep, he did not fall asleep because he was towing a trailer, So dragging it back to A-frames, I fail to see any relevance tbh.

I can see that your heart is in the right place and you genuinely feel there is an issue and I am not the great defender of A-frames ...its all down to personal choice as to where you stand .....show me the data supporting your stance and I will be the first to put mine in a dark cupboard and stop using it... But having looked into it I can not see the issue tbh. or the stats backing up your position.

best wishes

 

[DDJC]

Wow thats expensive ...did investigations show how this occured ....was it your first trip...did it jump imto drive or something .?

Wasn't first trip. Maybe third?

The instructions supplied by the fitter was to press the start button once. I can only guess what happened next from what Suzuki told me. They said that the engine was being turned over, without the ability to start. It got too hot and so blew bits of one of the cylinders out of the front of the block.

Oddly enough, once the new engine was fitted, we drove to Ireland with the Suzuki on the A Frame. Worked fine. On the way back however, the bus seemed sluggish pulling away. I pulled over after about a mile and sure enough the bonnet of the toad was very hot. We decoupled, and drive to Rosslare separately. Decided that the A frame we had fitted was too risky to use and never used it again. When we PX the Suzuki, the next owner can have the A frame as well, and I hope they have better luck with it than we did.

I say again, I am not anti A frame. I would however never use an A Frame with an auto/keyless car again. And I suppose it would have been better if the fitters had been honest about its legality on the continent, instead of giving out a cobbled together sheet of A4 with some untruths on it.

 

[TonyEmm]

As someone else has said ...the reason for the accident was that he fell asleep, he did not fall asleep because he was towing a trailer, So dragging it back to A-frames, I fail to see any relevance tbh.

I can see that your heart is in the right place and you genuinely feel there is an issue and I am not the great defender of A-frames ...its all down to personal choice as to where you stand .....show me the data supporting your stance and I will be the first to put mine in a dark cupboard and stop using it... But having looked into it I can not see the issue tbh. or the stats backing up your position.

best wishes

The reason for the accident isn’t relevant, the fact though is, if he hadn’t been towing a fully loaded platform trailer, it’s highly unlikely he’d have finished up on the railway line, asleep or not! You are right though that it wasn’t the Trailer that was at fault, Ifor Williams are absolved!

Now we’ve gone round in a full circle though, you’re insisting on seeing data, the simple fact is that there isn’t a reliable source of data, unless someone is killed. Fortunately, that rarely happens…. Though Google
#towsafe4freddie.

#TowSafe4Freddie : Death Of Three-Year-Old In Crushing Trailer Tragedy Leads To New Government Safety Campaign

Three-year Freddie Hussey The death of a three-year-old boy who was crushed by a runaway trailer

stories.swns.com

 

[TonyEmm]

I say again, I am not anti A frame. I would however never use an A Frame with an auto/keyless car again. And I suppose it would be have been better if the fitters had been honest about its legality on the continent, instead of giving out a cobbled together sheet of A4 with some untruths on it.

Untruths from an A-frame supplier? Shock horror!
to be fair, they are not all conning the public, but many are.

One issues a letter (in numerous languages) to present to the enforcement agencies abroad. It specifically says, “a certificate of CE Type Approval has been issued”. That is an outright lie. No a-frame on the U.K. market is type approved, there is no standard for them!

The same supplier issues a ‘Declaration of Conformity’ too. It’s arguable if that is criminal fraud as it’s bull from start to finish, and I believe, illegally uses the CE logo.

 

[SSILVO]

Wasn't first trip. Maybe third?

The instructions supplied by the fitter was to press the start button once. I can only guess what happened next from what Suzuki told me. They said that the engine was being turned over, without the ability to start. It got too hot and so blew bits of one of the cylinders out of the front of the block.

Oddly enough, once the new engine was fitted, we drove to Ireland with the Suzuki on the A Frame. Worked fine. On the way back however, the bus seemed sluggish pulling away. I pulled over after about a mile and sure enough the bonnet of the toad was very hot. We decoupled, and drive to Rosslare separately. Decided that the A frame we had fitted was too risky to use and never used it again. When we PX the Suzuki, the next owner can have the A frame as well, and I hope they have better luck with it than we did.

I say again, I am not anti A frame. I would however never use an A Frame with an auto/keyless car again. And I suppose it would be have been better if the fitters had been honest about its legality on the continent, instead of giving out a cobbled together sheet of A4 with some untruths on it.

wow, lucky you noticed the second time, this is our second keyless auto AYGO, and have a series of instructions to do and check prior to flat towing and having done them it is finally confirmed by 3 beeps from the car that we have done it right and it's in the right mode.

Must confess if I had your experience I would do exactly the same.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[DDJC]

One issues a letter (in numerous languages) to present to the enforcement agencies abroad. It specifically says, “a certificate of CE Type Approval has been issued”. That is an outright lie. No a-frame on the U.K. market is type approved, there is no standard for them!

The same supplier issues a ‘Declaration of Conformity’ too. It’s arguable if that is criminal fraud as it’s bull from start to finish, and I believe, illegally uses the CE logo.

Pretty much word for word what I received. Sounds like I used the fitter you are describing.

 

[bigtwin]

Interesting. However, I would suggest that in that case non smart motorways need more electronic signage, variable speed limits etc. A combination of this and a hard shoulder would be the safest option.

Ahh, more safe; that’s a tricky road (no pun intended).

Safety is expensive and absolute safety is impossible; where do we draw the line to get the safest option. Society obviously deems that our motorways (smart and normal) are adequately safe otherwise folks would be using only A/B roads.
You take a 3 lane mway, add an extra lane by using the hard shoulder which reduces the traffic density and claim they are safer.

And when the traffic density increases over time till it's back to the original, will it then be safer?

Lies damn lies and statistics.

Are you cynical about all data or just a predisposition in this (smart motorways) case?

Ian

 

[SSILVO]

The reason for the accident isn’t relevant, the fact though is, if he hadn’t been towing a fully loaded platform trailer, it’s highly unlikely he’d have finished up on the railway line, asleep or not! You are right though that it wasn’t the Trailer that was at fault, Ifor Williams are absolved!

Now we’ve gone round in a full circle though, you’re insisting on seeing data, the simple fact is that there isn’t a reliable source of data, unless someone is killed. Fortunately, that rarely happens…. Though Google
#towsafe4freddie.

#TowSafe4Freddie : Death Of Three-Year-Old In Crushing Trailer Tragedy Leads To New Government Safety Campaign

Three-year Freddie Hussey The death of a three-year-old boy who was crushed by a runaway trailer

stories.swns.com

Obviously, that incident is absolutely tragic and we all feel for the family of that little boy, but it had nothing to do with A-frames,
In fact from the article, it appears to have been human error in that the brake lever was in the wrong position.

Yes, we all have a moral responsibility to check the equipment we use to tow is safe before going on the road. But if the government believed it was a regular quantifiable issue why are they going in the other direction with regard to passing a test to tow trailers.

 

[TonyEmm]

Obviously, that incident is absolutely tragic and we all feel for the family of that little boy, but it had nothing to do with A-frames,
In fact from the article, it appears to have been human error in that the brake lever was in the wrong position.

Yes, we all have a moral responsibility to check the equipment we use to tow is safe before going on the road. But if the government believed it was a regular quantifiable issue why are they going in the other direction with regard to passing a test to tow trailers.

Freddie’s case may not have been an A-frame but it was a trailer, as the DfT insist!

The DfT’s current position with regard to passing a towing test has nothing whatsoever to do with trailer safety, it wasn’t even a major consideration in the very short consultation period. It’s based entirely on the fact that there is a shortage of slots for HGV drivers to take tests, nothing more, nothing less. Scrapping other tests frees up space!

 

[Minxy]

Obviously, that incident is absolutely tragic and we all feel for the family of that little boy, but it had nothing to do with A-frames,

... but when an A-frame is attached to a vehicle it 'allegedly' turns it into a trailer so it does have something to do with anything that it 'towed'.

In fact from the article, it appears to have been human error in that the brake lever was in the wrong position.

If it had been correctly attached to the car with then surely it wouldn't have been able to detach completely or had a way to ensure it kept some contact with it to prevent it being able to run 'free'? Maybe it didn't have this, I don't know, so this is this is where education of those who tow trailers etc comes into play.

Yes, we all have a moral responsibility to check the equipment we use to tow is safe before going on the road. But if the government believed it was a regular quantifiable issue why are they going in the other direction with regard to passing a test to tow trailers.

I think Tony has answered that one which is probably the most likely reason.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pelican]

Untruths from an A-frame supplier? Shock horror!
to be fair, they are not all conning the public, but many are.

One issues a letter (in numerous languages) to present to the enforcement agencies abroad. It specifically says, “a certificate of CE Type Approval has been issued”. That is an outright lie. No a-frame on the U.K. market is type approved, there is no standard for them!

The same supplier issues a ‘Declaration of Conformity’ too. It’s arguable if that is criminal fraud as it’s bull from start to finish, and I believe, illegally uses the CE logo.

What are your thoughts on American boat trailers used in UK, I understand they have hydraulic brakes, maybe a good mod for a toad.

 

[TonyEmm]

But if the government believed it was a regular quantifiable issue why are they going in the other direction with regard to passing a test to tow trailers.

here’s the answer to that from the horses mouth! Fast forward to 2203.

Parliamentlive.tv

House of Commons

parliamentlive.tv

 

[TonyEmm]

What are your thoughts on American boat trailers used in UK, I understand they have hydraulic brakes, maybe a good mod for a toad.

I don’t have an issue with any type of braking system be it purely mechanical, hydraulic or electric, as long as it works correctly! I have some (limited) experience of hydraulic brakes on cat O2 trailers though, and it wasn’t especially good. Hydraulics are great, they produce immense power, but I found them incompatible with auto-reversing, which is a requirement in both EU and U.K. law.

Most American trailers I came across, certainly as imported, do not have 50mm ball couplings either. They need to be adapted.

The problem with a ‘toad’ is that it is fundamentally a car, so that too has hydraulic brakes. Most ‘toads’ have inertia couplings to activate the braking system. They are legally required to be auto-reversed, and that is impossible to comply with when the hydraulic brakes don’t have the auto-reverse mechanisms fitted to trailers.

 

[TonyEmm]

19 pages trying to persuade us how dangerous A Framed cars are.

To read the posts you'd think that you'd walk down any High Street dodging and jumping out of the way of cars careering down the road, separated from the towing motorhome! Must be soul destroying to have only one case to refer too !

4 other reported cases this year of eye-bolt failure and 2 of the crash beam failing dud to stress cracks. Fortunately, non of them broke away totally. They were partial failures.
You can put your hands over your eyes if you like, but they happen.

the moral is that EVERY a-frame needs to be checked and inspected on a regular basis. I would suggest 12 monthly. If folk do it voluntarily, it might even negate the need for enforcement!

 

[olley]

Ahh, more safe; that’s a tricky road (no pun intended).

Safety is expensive and absolute safety is impossible; where do we draw the line to get the safest option. Society obviously deems that our motorways (smart and normal) are adequately safe otherwise folks would be using only A/B roads.
You take a 3 lane mway, add an extra lane by using the hard shoulder which reduces the traffic density and claim they are safer.


Are you cynical about all data or just a predisposition in this (smart motorways) case?

Ian

Smart mways are being rolled out as a cheap way to add an extra lane, it's nothing to do with safety only saving money.
SM have attracted a lot of bad publicity but no one will admit they are dangerous, especially as the safe area's are much further apart than originally designed and the monitoring is abysmal according to a newspaper exposé.
Am I cynical? Damn right I am.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[bigtwin]

Smart mways are being rolled out as a cheap way to add an extra lane, it's nothing to do with safety only saving money.
SM have attracted a lot of bad publicity but no one will admit they are dangerous, especially as the safe area's are much further apart than originally designed and the monitoring is abysmal according to a newspaper exposé.
Am I cynical? Damn right I am.

My response wrt safety was to the point being raised by VXman.

If you’re partial to an exposé, try this one:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936811/smart-motorway-safety-evidence-stocktake-and-action-plan.pdf

Ian

 

[Carpmart]

As with any load, trailer, vehicle it is unequivocally the responsibility of the driver/operator to ensure the safety, condition and road worthiness of the vehicle they intend to operate on the highway.

The operator of the MH and toad which this topic is linked to clearly failed to inspect their ‘load’ and frankly should keep their heads down and be thankful that their lack of due diligence and vehicle inspection, hasn’t resulted in them being prosecuted for an unsecured trailer/load and their insurance being declined.

I also reiterate that this topic is bloody useless at assisting this community. Several of the forum may have the same flat tow system installed, which if the concern of those ‘in the know’ is genuinely a safety one, then the lack of disclosure of the system involved is frankly ridiculous!

 

[charliesgrandad]

Not sure what smart motorways have to do with this thread should it not find it’s own thread?

 

[bigtwin]

Not sure what smart motorways have to do with this thread should it not find it’s own thread?

Are you trying to unpick this thread?

Ian

 

[olley]

Not sure what smart motorways have to do with this thread should it not find it’s own thread?

Why? This A frame thread was getting boring so lets deviate a little.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[TonyEmm]

As with any load, trailer, vehicle it is unequivocally the responsibility of the driver/operator to ensure the safety, condition and road worthiness of the vehicle they intend to operate on the highway.

The operator of the MH and toad which this topic is linked to clearly failed to inspect their ‘load’ and frankly should keep their heads down and be thankful that their lack of due diligence and vehicle inspection, hasn’t resulted in them being prosecuted for an unsecured trailer/load and their insurance being declined.

I also reiterate that this topic is bloody useless at assisting this community. Several of the forum may have the same flat tow system installed, which if the concern of those ‘in the know’ is genuinely a safety one, then the lack of disclosure of the system involved is frankly ridiculous!

You are jumping to conclusions. Whether the users inspected their ‘load’ as you put it, was a specific question asked by the VSB. One of many questions, I may add.
On the basis of the replies, they have now chosen to inspect the vehicle. Sadly, it’s 3 weeks after the event, and there is a risk it is no longer available. We have to wait and see.

Regarding lack of disclosure, blame the supplier and their solicitor for that. Their first response was threats of legal action if the company’s name was broadcast on Social Media. (They still haven’t asked if anyone was injured)

Believe me, if/when it’s safe to do so, the motorhoming community will be enlightened!

 

[Barclaybasher]

Not about the money ?

Hogwash !

If it was just about safety - alerting the DVSA (done) and Trading Standards would do that!

It now appears that a 'paltry' offer was made and rejected....

Lucky to be paid out by insurance, not prosecuted by police....taking no responsibility themselves........

Now trying to extract money from a fitter after over 10 years?

Disgusting!