Driver Cams?

[Tennesseahawk]

That would be classic rumor and truck stop talk. I happened to know ACT's owner. He was the last chairman of the Truckload Carriers Association and a huge advocate for drivers. They are testing Drivecam (which doesn't face or have a sleeper cam). As well he is an attorney by trade and does anyone think you could mount a sleeper cam legally???? Silly. Hawk you know better than that.

Companies are always trying to skirt the law, until they get caught. Come on, John... you know better than that.

As far as your assertion that ACT doesn't have driver facing cameras, here ya go... post 722 and 733.

Return to ACT (American Central Transport) - Page 73

 

[jelliott]

Driver yes. You said the sleeper. BIG difference.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Driver yes. You said the sleeper. BIG difference.

My assertion of a sleeper cam, I admitted, could've been just a rumor, and looks like it was. However, they do have driver cams, and are no longer testing them, but have made them permanent, "to protect the driver, and our wallet." If they are the dual, I ask that you look at this pic, and tell me that you're absolutely positive that the camera facing the driver will, in no way, see into the sleeper.

 

[jelliott]

Out of curiosity have you ever actually looked at the product or done any research? Just wonder how much is based on facts vs hear say. ACT was testing 20 units. They decided to go ahead and roll it out to their fleet 4 weeks ago. I was with their CEO at a conference. I have also looked at the actual hardware and watched real life in cab demos. So I might know a little bit. But with that being day I personally decided not to implement the technology.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Out of curiosity have you ever actually looked at the product or done any research? Just wonder how much is based on facts vs hear say. ACT was testing 20 units. They decided to go ahead and roll it out to their fleet 4 weeks ago. I was with their CEO at a conference. I have also looked at the actual hardware and watched real life in cab demos. So I might know a little bit. But with that being day I personally decided not to implement the technology.

I'm glad you didn't. But you're certainly trying to sell it as a good idea.

 

[jelliott]

I'm glad you didn't. But you're certainly trying to sell it as a good idea.

I think it has a lot of positive aspects. It is my opinion. I don't think I am selling anything. I just see a lot from the other side of the desk sometimes. This forum is all about different views.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I think it has a lot of positive aspects. It is my opinion. I don't think I am selling anything. I just see a lot from the other side of the desk sometimes. This forum is all about different views.

I agree. But you have to admit that it would be an extremely hard sell to contractors. I just hope to hell the feds don't mandate it. But as we've seen many other liberties go by the wayside, I suspect this one will kill another.

 

[aristotle]

Looking at post#1 and post#2 being 20 minutes apart, one gets the feeling a prior conversation on this subject might have spilled over to the pages of EO with advocacy for dash cams being floated as a trial balloon.

 

[cheri1122]

Looking at post#1 and post#2 being 20 minutes apart, one gets the feeling a prior conversation on this subject might have spilled over to the pages of EO with advocacy for dash cams being floated as a trial balloon.

My, but we're perspicacious! [Or maybe that's suspicious - sometimes I mix them up]
And what if it was? Where better to "float a trial balloon" regarding technology that impacts [or might] drivers, than here? And since they asked, how do you feel about dashcam monitoring?

 

[mjmsprt40]

If I mount the thing, and I know---- for a fact--- what its field of view is ---- nope, I'm not inclined to accept the company telling me what it is, I have to KNOW-- it might be one thing. If the company installs these things whether I like it or not, and I just have to accept that they won't invade privacy unjustly------ there's a big problem.

Of a truth, I'm not tickled about a camera being aimed at me all the time anyway. Somewhere along the way, you lose "independent contractor" and become an employee--- and I'm reasonably certain the IRS will see it that way, too. Remember, those revenuers are always looking for ways to make us employees, subject to withholding and all the rest of it----- and these cameras aimed at the driver are a "gimme" for them. It puts the boss in the cab with you, after all....

 

[SWTexas1]

In this ever changing world of trucking, one has to do all that they can to protect themselves and their assets. As a owner/ operator I started with a single camera and have moved up to a 2 camera system. When I got the new system with the second camera, I gave a great deal of thought to this subject. The camera ended up being pointed down the blind side of the truck where I felt it best protected myself. My fear with a driver facing camera is that at the time of an accident, if the camera shows you looking at the left mirror when a vehicle strikes from the right, how easy is it going to be for a lawyer to make it your fault. ( this example assume that you were not doing anything illegal ). Just my 2 cents

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I might be more agreeable IF the camera was NOT a web enabled and it was a looped, recorded over every hour or so....
and NOT aimed at the driver to spy what they are doing....that is an invasion of privacy...at least for an O/O...employees don't get such a thing when they are almost forced to sign a waiver maybe as a condition of being hired...

 

[jelliott]

Looking at post#1 and post#2 being 20 minutes apart, one gets the feeling a prior conversation on this subject might have spilled over to the pages of EO with advocacy for dash cams being floated as a trial balloon.

With 6,000 posts, you can look at my history. I tend to weigh in on a lot of subjects. Although a driver forum primarily I think it is good to bring other views to the forum. Sometimes those different perspectives and different sources of information can change or educate both sides. That is a big part of why I started on here. Personally I have learned a lot and value the things I have learned from the "other side". But the conspiracy theory is pretty cool.....LOL.

To OVM's point the ones available at truckstops and to the consumer loop and record a long period of time. The commercial or enterprise models only record digitally for like one minute and constantly over write. I understand the concerns about the inward facing camera. Seems easy to have them test the unit so the person can see exactly what is seen as a result. It doesn't seem like many are nearly as concerned with the forward facing camera.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

In this ever changing world of trucking, one has to do all that they can to protect themselves and their assets. As a owner/ operator I started with a single camera and have moved up to a 2 camera system. When I got the new system with the second camera, I gave a great deal of thought to this subject. The camera ended up being pointed down the blind side of the truck where I felt it best protected myself. My fear with a driver facing camera is that at the time of an accident, if the camera shows you looking at the left mirror when a vehicle strikes from the right, how easy is it going to be for a lawyer to make it your fault. ( this example assume that you were not doing anything illegal ). Just my 2 cents

You are absolutely right. Putting my own cameras in the truck is my business; but don't tell me my privacy is worth nothing. It only seems that way with Google, Microsoft, and others, conspiring to collect everything they can on you; not to mention the government. I value my privacy. If companies can't just be happy with trusting the people they hire with driving their equipment, then maybe they should reconsider being in trucking altogether. Of course, that's why they're lobbying to bring in more aliens... more control, less pay, less complaining.

You bring up a good point about lawyers. It goes both ways. They'll extrapolate crazy theories, and convince a jury that the sicko who is picking his nose, while driving a rig, is at fault because he had one hand rolling a booger... or whatever. Again, it comes down to control of the trucker; not only from the government, but by the desk jockeys and polished managerial types who fill trucking company cubicles and offices. They need to take heed, because if this becomes a trend, the companies who are en vogue to make money off this scheme... yes, it's a scheme... will be left with idiots driving their customer's freight. The smart drivers won't tolerate it.

Oh, and don't fall for the "it's about safety, and protecting the driver" shpeel. It's about finding ways to make money off the driver's back... money that will never see the driver's pocket.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

You are absolutely right. Putting my own cameras in the truck is my business; but don't tell me my privacy is worth nothing. It only seems that way with Google, Microsoft, and others, conspiring to collect everything they can on you; not to mention the government. I value my privacy. If companies can't just be happy with trusting the people they hire with driving their equipment, then maybe they should reconsider being in trucking altogether. Of course, that's why they're lobbying to bring in more aliens... more control, less pay, less complaining.

You bring up a good point about lawyers. It goes both ways. They'll extrapolate crazy theories, and convince a jury that the sicko who is picking his nose, while driving a rig, is at fault because he had one hand rolling a booger... or whatever. Again, it comes down to control of the trucker; not only from the government, but by the desk jockeys and polished managerial types who fill trucking company cubicles and offices. They need to take heed, because if this becomes a trend, the companies who are en vogue to make money off this scheme... yes, it's a scheme... will be left with idiots driving their customer's freight. The smart drivers won't tolerate it.

Agreed....where does monitoring end?....once its started? aka allowed?...all using the old excuse to protect YOU or is it really more for the protection of the carrier so they can pass blame unto the boogie roller?....and for being an LLC they just need to claim bankrupt and start another company and start clean...

 

[schwanman]

Would this be another cost such as Qualcomm ?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Would this be another cost such as Qualcomm ?

You can almost see the company line now with an O/O...."we are putting these in to protect YOU and there is a fee for that"

 

[flattop40]

This IS a very interesting topic. I have often thought about the purchase of a dash cam myself. I was also going to use it for personal reasons such as on my Harley while riding, or using it for training purposes for competitive canoe paddling. It would be something that I purchased and had TOTAL control over. The thought of having something MANDATED, whether by the government or a company, is totally disturbing to me. I agree with hawk that it crosses the line between IC and employee.

I can see pros and cons for both sides, but thinking about it I see more cons for drivers and pros for companies. Especially in regards to the driver cam. As illustrated in an earlier example, one little miss step by the driver and it would just put fuel on the fire in court. An example would be, say 20 seconds before an incident you reached over to change the channel on the radio. Lawyers would see that and say the driver was preoccupied with the radio and wasn't paying attention to the road. Even if it was 20 seconds prior. I don't care who you are, if you are driving 11 hours, you will take one hand off the wheel, look at your radio, light up a cigarette, talk on the CB, eat something, look at something outside the truck not related to driving, etc. All of which could be used against you in court.

Doing this for only "problem drivers?" First off if you have problem drivers? GET RID OF THEM!!! Oh but wait, there is a drivers shortage, we can't do that. Lets try to get the most out of these drivers but cover our arsses. Secondly, wouldn't that cross over into a discrimination area? Just say'n.

I have a feeling this is going to become a growing topic over the next few years. George Orwell was truly our modern day Nostradamus.

 

[mjmsprt40]

I wonder if we can get a reality-TV show out of this?

"The life and times of an expedited driver--- starring MJMSPRT40!"

I wonder if ad revenues would go through the roof---- or if people couldn't turn the program off fast enough?

 

[rollincoal]

I remember 12 or 13 years ago when HOS was first changed from the way it had been since the 1930's. Around that time bad apple carriers who were getting busted often over compliance issues were being forced into running EOBR's. It was the firstwidespread officially mandated use sort of when EOBR broke onto the scene. We were told this would only ever be for the bad companies that were pushing drivers to run illegally or the drivers were just running that way because they wanted to. And no-one complained about it. Of course it was a lie. The intention all along was for everyone to be on EOBR. I suppose since we no longer have any reasonable expectations of privacy from government or private concerns in this country that everyone will have a camera facing them at some point too. Really you shouldn't have anything to hide so what's the big deal right?