Spy cams in trucks

[mndriver]

I think what you are grasping for fits in here.


Knowledge is power.

Workplace Privacy and Employee Monitoring | Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

 

[GroceryHauler]

First and foremost, I am 100% against cameras facing the driver in the cab. With that said, let me explain how these systems actually work, or at least the system my company wanted to use before we raised enough of a stink to get the idea shot down.

The camera isn't always recording video or sound. It only kicks in when an event such as a sudden acceleration, deceleration, violent lane departure, etc. triggers it. The recording actually goes to a third party company independent of the trucking company. It's kept on file for a certain amount of time in case the company requests the footage for an accident review. Until that point, nobody at the company views or hears any footage whatsoever.

For those of you worried that someone will be peeking in on you while you're naked, get over yourselves. Nobody wants to see you accidentally, much less intentionally.

 

[Blood]

I still think that cameras would be an invasion of privacy. The requirement that police officers provide a search warrant seems to set the legal precedent of it being a private domicile. Besides, the first time some jerk in the company decides to use a driver as "what not to do" in the bunk, then I'm sure the driver will sue on the grounds of invasion of privacy using the precedent of it being a legal domicile. To me it's like the landlord you rent a house from because they can't video you without your knowledge. Can't video someone in a hotel room either no matter how many millions you have tied up in the property, even if you are only taping the cleaning crew. Of course I could also make the case that it's OK to video based on the people who video their babysitters. I just personally believe it's wrong to video drivers in their trucks and I think that it's something that's ripe for a class action lawsuit.

Supposedly the camera only shows the driver when they are occupying the drivers seat.
If so then the invasion argument would be a (legally) moot point since the cameras are placed with the drivers knowledge.

BTW, Is that what you saw on that training video @Duck ?
You're the only one I know of who has actually seen what the carrier can pull up from video.

 

[Blood]

The recording actually goes to a third party company independent of the trucking company. It's kept on file for a certain amount of time in case the company requests the footage for an accident review. Until that point, nobody at the company views or hears any footage whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure @Duck said a company he went through orientation for had footage of a driver sipping coffee.
That might have been with consent for the training video but it does demonstrate that they can access the video under other circumstances.

I'm also pretty sure that Tazz said Titan called one of their drivers after installing cameras and told him to get off the road while eating his lunch.

 

[Duck]

Supposedly the camera only shows the driver when they are occupying the drivers seat.
If so then the invasion argument would be a (legally) moot point since the cameras are placed with the drivers knowledge.

BTW, Is that what you saw on that training video @Duck ?
You're the only one I know of who has actually seen what the carrier can pull up from video.

The camera had a wide angle view. You could see into the sleeper.

I'm pretty sure @Duck said a company he went through orientation for had footage of a driver sipping coffee.
That might have been with consent for the training video but it does demonstrate that they can access the video under other circumstances.

They say they only upload video if the ECM detects a trigger incident like hard braking or unusual G-forces but I saw a propaganda video produced by DriveCam themselves, ... showing a driver talking on a handheld cell phone while the split screen showing the forward view of the road shows nothing happening at all that would trigger the ECM to upload the video.

 

[Chemguru]

First and foremost, I am 100% against cameras facing the driver in the cab. With that said, let me explain how these systems actually work, or at least the system my company wanted to use before we raised enough of a stink to get the idea shot down.

The camera isn't always recording video or sound. It only kicks in when an event such as a sudden acceleration, deceleration, violent lane departure, etc. triggers it. The recording actually goes to a third party company independent of the trucking company. It's kept on file for a certain amount of time in case the company requests the footage for an accident review. Until that point, nobody at the company views or hears any footage whatsoever.

For those of you worried that someone will be peeking in on you while you're naked, get over yourselves. Nobody wants to see you accidentally, much less intentionally.

Hell, I hope not! For most of us crusty ole truckers? That would be baaaad naked!!! I'm good long as my fat frumpy butt doesn't wind up posted on the net for the whole world to observe and lose their lunch over!

 

[soulsurvives]

i have my own dash cam facing the road......no way would i even work for a company that had one facing me......

 

[Chemguru]

i have my own dash cam facing the road......no way would i even work for a company that had one facing me......

I would thank them for that! I intend to put one facing the road in whatever truck I drive. Just in case I ever get attacked by a ly'in-azz ambulance chaser!

If they just did a 180 with their camera, it would save me the trouble!

 

[Duck]

 

[Southern Fried]

Look, the issue comes down to one thing and one thing only..... do you trust your driver(s) or not. It's really just that simple.

If your answer is truly "Yes" then forget the "driver cam" and carry on business as usual.

If your answer is "No" then it's time to look closely at your hiring practices..... and why you're in this business in the first place. By this I'm referring to why you're buying multiple trucks and hiring drivers in the first place. Note.... this is for "our folks" with small fleets NOT Swift or any of the big outfits.

The most successful small fleets I have ever known were comprised of owner-ops who owned their own equipment (truck and trailer) operating under the company's authority. Unlike a "hired driver" these folks have "skin in the game" and are far less likely to screw around and are definitely more experienced hence less problems. Perhaps you would do better to try that model???

Yes, I know that is "old school" and that it's "cooler" to have the "latest and greatest" computer program and electronic toys. Well, you can have them too to keep your office monkeys happy. Just remember that the "office monkeys" can put you out of business faster than anybody.

 

[Chemguru]

Look, the issue comes down to one thing and one thing only..... do you trust your driver(s) or not. It's really just that simple.

If your answer is truly "Yes" then forget the "driver cam" and carry on business as usual.

If your answer is "No" then it's time to look closely at your hiring practices..... and why you're in this business in the first place. By this I'm referring to why you're buying multiple trucks and hiring drivers in the first place. Note.... this is for "our folks" with small fleets NOT Swift or any of the big outfits.

The most successful small fleets I have ever known were comprised of owner-ops who owned their own equipment (truck and trailer) operating under the company's authority. Unlike a "hired driver" these folks have "skin in the game" and are far less likely to screw around and are definitely more experienced hence less problems. Perhaps you would do better to try that model???

Yes, I know that is "old school" and that it's "cooler" to have the "latest and greatest" computer program and electronic toys. Well, you can have them too to keep your office monkeys happy. Just remember that the "office monkeys" can put you out of business faster than anybody.

I agree 100%. That's why I said "looks like i will go O/O sooner than I thought".

 

[DubbleD]

I'm an advocate for forward facing cameras. I supply then if requested.

 

[Southern Fried]

I'm an advocate for forward facing cameras. I supply then if requested.

Actually, I wouldn't mind much having the forward and a couple which could record down along both sides.... for the numbnuts who try "merging" into the side of me or who speed past and then cut over multiple lanes..... and which record onto a CD or something so I can show it around.

 

[Coronado Kid]

We cant get mad at the companies the driver dash cams are for the companies protection because if a car brake checks you and you hit them and they try to sue the company you have proof of what happened. If they have them in the bunk now that off limits

 

[Southern Fried]

We cant get mad at the companies the driver dash cams are for the companies protection because if a car brake checks you and you hit them and they try to sue the company you have proof of what happened. If they have them in the bunk now that off limits

Sir, if you really believe that the purpose of a driver-facing camera is for "the driver's protection" you probably would support Obama being "Ruler for Life". Any lawyer representing your company would immediately use such to put the blame squarely on the driver alone.

"Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury; the video proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the driver was looking at the mirror/staring off into space/sneezing/not paying attention/whatever just before the accident happened.... thus proving that despite all attempts by "our client" to provide him with all the most modern "safety equipment" and training he chose not to use them properly. Therefore, he and he alone is at fault here, not my innocent client whose trust was so rudely violated."

Think your company will stand behind you in court? Only long enough to kick you squarely in the ass.

 

[Coronado Kid]

That obama thing I do support it but not for life

 

[DubbleD]

"Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury; the video proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the driver was looking at the mirror/staring off into space/sneezing/not paying attention/whatever just before the accident happened.... thus proving that despite all attempts by "our client" to provide him with all the most modern "safety equipment" and training he chose not to use them properly. Therefore, he and he alone is at fault here, not my innocent client whose trust was so rudely violated."

Your honor, ladies and gents... The video proves beyond a doubt, the driver was not... NOT.... Using their phone, talking on the cb, picking their nose... Prior to the accident but rather... Was doing everything humanly possible to maintain control of the rig while saving the lives of commuters that lost control of the passenger van.

May he rest in peace!

 

[Sinister]

What Obama thing?

 

[DubbleD]

What Obama thing?

Have a nice nap?

 

[Dinomite]

Dude you need to say no to the peace pipe. No matter what the lawyers go after the company who hired the idiot who stares off into space instead of paying attention which he is payed to do. The funny part is most of you have no faith in the tons of drivers who do pay attention. But protecting the numnuts who don't.

If you watch some of these guys video's the ones who do have only the front lens. You can tell by reaction time some were in never never land.