The article is on point, unfortunately. I wonder if motor carriers are going to be forced into these things even if they don't want them. To inspire such an outcome, it will only take a trial lawyer or two to successfully argue the case that the company did not do everything it reasonably could to promote safety; as shown by the fact that they decided against driver cams.
It's just like EOBR, speed limiters and every other sort of regulation the big carriers want to foist on everyone. They always get what they want. I said it on another forum and it's worth repeating here even though it's slightly off topic. Anyone that thinks EOBR was dreamt up by mega carriers because of safety is really drinking the cool aid. That was pushed so they could contrive an artificial capacity crunch. You read in the logistics articles that's what all the transport people are talking about, a looming capacity crunch when these regs go into effect. A contrived artificial boost to the rates. Doesn't have anything to do with real economic growth. Basically just using government as a tool to leach. But hey, those of us willing to put up with it and adapt benefit I guess.
True. Nothing happens in trucking unless the carrier or government makes money from it.
Although I do like the dispatcher cam. That way I can tell if they are aggressively looking for loads and interacting with the customers properly. Wait a minute, some already do that.
But it takes forever to catch the ones watching porn all the time. Why is that?