maga:
You’ve got to wonder what some people get up to in the cab seeing as they’re so against being recorded at work.
Im recorded constantly at work (not driving) and couldn’t care less.
It aint a question of what they get up to, it’s all about an invasion of privacy and liberties being taken.
Some stand up for their rights, and against unfair injustices.
Others bend over at the drop of a hat and take anything that is dished out to them up their arses,.while watching the boundaries being pushed to as far as can be got away with.
I know which camp I’m in, …and evidently the one that you’ re in.
I think our definition of unfair injustices differ massively. Being recorded while on break or rest I can understand your point of view and would fight it, but I don’t see a problem with being recorded while driving.
As for assuming what camp I’m in, the company I work for have the best TC’s and pay in our sector due to being heavily unionised and the workforce saying no to company crap regular.
maga:
You’ve got to wonder what some people get up to in the cab seeing as they’re so against being recorded at work.
Im recorded constantly at work (not driving) and couldn’t care less.
It aint a question of what they get up to, it’s all about an invasion of privacy and liberties being taken.
Some stand up for their rights, and against unfair injustices.
Others bend over at the drop of a hat and take anything that is dished out to them up their arses,.while watching the boundaries being pushed to as far as can be got away with.
I know which camp I’m in, …and evidently the one that you’ re in.
I think our definition of unfair injustices differ massively. Being recorded while on break or rest I can understand your point of view and would fight it, but I don’t see a problem with being recorded while driving.
As for assuming what camp I’m in, the company I work for have the best TC’s and pay in our sector due to being heavily unionised and the workforce saying no to company crap regular.
You’re dead right on that one mate, our definitions certainly do vary.
I’m amazed a unionised firm put up with all that.
Maybe your drivers should have said no to this crap also, if your firm know they can get away with this at a union level, it’s the thin end of the wedge I would say.
Instead of spending loads of cash for indoor cameras…why wont they spend it on real protection outside…many trailers are slashed. a lot of fuel is stolen …some drivers are threatened…thats where the cameras should be sited…then the office can monitor, and forward any activity to the police…especially if the office work unusual hours like we have to.
truckyboy:
Instead of spending loads of cash for indoor cameras…why wont they spend it on real protection outside…many trailers are slashed. a lot of fuel is stolen …some drivers are threatened…thats where the cameras should be sited…then the office can monitor, and forward any activity to the police…especially if the office work unusual hours like we have to.
That’s way too much common sense and logic for these modern micro management type Herberts TB.
They want to be in constant control, and nurture subservient robots,…and if drivers are actually as numb from the neck up enough just to readily accept this type of bull crap, and think it’s acceptable, then unfortunately for the likes of you and me, that is exactly what they are getting.
@ David H : I received your lengthy PM thanks, but am unable to reply to it. I don’t understand why - seeing as this is a discussion forum - you didn’t just post it here though? Other members may have some input on it. Personally I don’t agree with the reasons you’ve stated about the youngsters. Again, I believe you couldn’t be more wrong and are making assumptions without actually having to spoken to any of them. 99% of them couldn’t give a toss.
You’ve got to ask yourself if a company fits all it’s trucks with cameras then spot hire’s a load of units in and there’s nothing on them(outward or inward) and are happy to send same drivers out in both,whats the point in the first place,it’s clearly not insurance or anything to do with contracts,one unit without is doing same job as one with…
As far as i know if your company is using CCTV camera’s that would film you they are supposed to put notices up on sites/offices i would think this would cover them for using them in company vehicles as well. BUT i believe if the cameras record sound they are supposed to make you aware of this?
Now i’m not really in favour of being on CCTV but it is more or less everywhere now so i’d say that 99.9% of the working or shopping population is on camera at some point in the day.
If you look at it from a company bean counters point of view a lorry is a valuable asset and if these camera’s reduce their insurance costs they’ll snap em up they don’t care if the driver in them has been driving for 30 minutes or 30 years.
Now if they struggle to get or keep drivers down the line maybe they’ll see the error of their ways but thats a tomorrow problem!
As an agency driver I never know if they will have in cab cameras. Because I am already there I dont want to lose my shift so I now carry a tape with me.
Juddian:
Lads, you do not have to put up with these invasions of your privacy.
Join the union, stand together and you can fight these things.
I know the way to fight these but i am not going to put it on open forum, if you unionise yourselves then your union office is a mine of information, if you can’t be bothered to unionise yourselves then lump it.
Hint…in many cases due dilligence was not exercised ‘‘before’’ installation, that’s all i’m saying.
I would say due diligence would cover a tribunal. The company fit cameras with or without the drivers knowledge. The law requires signage saying you may be recorded and that will be in any employee contracts.
Driver A is told to go to B
Driver D is told to go to C
Planner 2 is concerned and rings Driver A. Planner 1 rings Driver D. One Driver answers the phone. Who gets the sack?
maga:
I don’t see a problem with being recorded while driving.
You yawn a couple of times, then have a prang. “He was driving tired, he should have pulled over for a break” they’ll say.
Not only that, but accepting these cameras is allowing a slow encroachment of total surveillance to become normal. It’s not. If you want an example of what total surveillance looks like, look no further than the Xinjiang region of China. There are police station every 300 metres, ANPR cameras which scan faces of drivers to ensure the person driving the vehicle matches the person it’s registered to. Four to five checkpoints per kilometre whereby you can be randomly forced to give officals access to your smartphone where they download everything in a cradle, have your iris’s scanned, and fingerprints taken. Three rounds of bag checks before buying a railway ticket, poles bearing 8-10 cameras every 100-200 metres in some towns, and mandatory government spyware apps on your phone. There are wi-fi sniffers to detect what devices are connected to what network, and a social score, which, the higher it is (earned from good behaviour) the more social privileges one gets. Then there’s the iris scanners in toilets which give you 24 inches of toilet paper, and cannot be issued to the same person again for 9 minutes. So that’s most lorry drivers stuffed then!
I see a big problem with allowing oneself to be recored whilst driving, becasue tomorrow it’ll be whilst having a number 2, especially as most drivers have no problem bending over.
I am struggling with this assumption that a strong union representation will prevent cameras being installed. Train drivers are in perhaps the strongest union there is, but absolutely everything that they do when they’re in the cab is monitored. So much as look at a phone when underway and it’s big trouble. I don’t see ASLEF jumping up and down and threatening strikes over it.
The point made in another thread is a good one. The various monitoring items that track everything a lorry driver does in some cases are over the top and unnecessary for most drivers. But, as is usually the case, they have come about thanks to the idiots in the game that cannot be trusted to act in a remotely responsible manner. Whether it’s the utter clowns that drive for several hundred yards with all of the nearside wheels on the hard shoulder (seemingly without noticing that they are doing it), or those that are unable to stop when the vehicle in front does and end up shutting a motorway for several hours while the mess is cleaned up, them and their ilk are the reason for the popularity of monitoring equipment. Nothing else.
How does it go again? Drivers… worst enemies… I can’t remember.
My view on it is:
Whilst the vehicle is moving, I can just about see the validity of in facing cameras (without sound recording).
However, I only see justification for them if the technology is adapted for once the vehicle is stopped, put on rest/POA etc then the cameras are automatically turned off.
Personally we have decent drivers so don’t feel the need to have anything of the sort fitted but I can see why larger firms who employ agency/deadheads install them.
It’s funny how when the Soviet Union was carrying out surveillance on its citizens which didn’t amount to a fraction of this, we held it up as an example of one of the evils of Communism. Fifty years later and Russian tourists gawp in amazement at the sheer number of CCTV cameras in London.
albion:
Just curious rob, let me run a hypothetical situation past you.
Say you worked for company X that you thought were OK, a decent company, but their main customer Y decided that it was part of the contract that X had to fit inward facing cameras into the truck or they would find another haulier.
If your boss decided that he’d rather walk away from the job and close the company than have inward facing cameras, (straw breaking the camels back scenario), would you think good for him standing by his principles or that he should just get on with it?
Genuine question.
“I can have £1million a year in my pocket if I have inward facing cameras in my truck or I can claim £75 a week on the dole if I don’t. Hmmm…I wonder which one I’ll choose…”
Harry Monk:
The difference being that a truck isn’t a public place. What others do is up to them, but I personally have never driven a truck with an inward facing camera and never would.
Trucks spend the majority of their time being used in a legal definition of a public place and you cannot do anything legally to stop someone filming you from outside of the vehicle as you drive down the road.
albion:
Just curious rob, let me run a hypothetical situation past you.
Say you worked for company X that you thought were OK, a decent company, but their main customer Y decided that it was part of the contract that X had to fit inward facing cameras into the truck or they would find another haulier.
If your boss decided that he’d rather walk away from the job and close the company than have inward facing cameras, (straw breaking the camels back scenario), would you think good for him standing by his principles or that he should just get on with it?
Genuine question.
“I can have £1million a year in my pocket if I have inward facing cameras in my truck or I can claim £75 a week on the dole if I don’t. Hmmm…I wonder which one I’ll choose…”
Depends on if the boss needs the money, maybe s/he has made enough that they don’t need dole money. And frankly if they were getting a million in their pocket, they definitely would not qualify for dole in a long time!
I can imagine the furore on Trucknet with the Iris Scanner. Fuelling up and curling one out and you need another 24’’ of bog roll, how will some cope for 9 minutes?
Wheel Nut:
I can imagine the furore on Trucknet with the Iris Scanner. Fuelling up and curling one out and you need another 24’’ of bog roll, how will some cope for 9 minutes?
From what I’ve seen of most toilets after a trucker has used them I don’t think that using bog roll featrues anywhere in the process .
maga:
I don’t see a problem with being recorded while driving.
You yawn a couple of times, then have a prang. “He was driving tired, he should have pulled over for a break” they’ll say.
Not only that, but accepting these cameras is allowing a slow encroachment of total surveillance to become normal. It’s not. If you want an example of what total surveillance looks like, look no further than the Xinjiang region of China. There are police station every 300 metres, ANPR cameras which scan faces of drivers to ensure the person driving the vehicle matches the person it’s registered to. Four to five checkpoints per kilometre whereby you can be randomly forced to give officals access to your smartphone where they download everything in a cradle, have your iris’s scanned, and fingerprints taken. Three rounds of bag checks before buying a railway ticket, poles bearing 8-10 cameras every 100-200 metres in some towns, and mandatory government spyware apps on your phone. There are wi-fi sniffers to detect what devices are connected to what network, and a social score, which, the higher it is (earned from good behaviour) the more social privileges one gets. Then there’s the iris scanners in toilets which give you 24 inches of toilet paper, and cannot be issued to the same person again for 9 minutes. So that’s most lorry drivers stuffed then!
I see a big problem with allowing oneself to be recored whilst driving, becasue tomorrow it’ll be whilst having a number 2, especially as most drivers have no problem bending over.
Ezy, I was actually reading about this myself just a few days ago, frankly in disbelief! I’m not sure where I saw it linked originally, it may have been in one of Carryfast’s “commy” posts on here actually.
For anyone that’s not heard of this new system that’s been rolled out in China, well worth a read :
It kinda puts things into perspective doesn’t it? We really don’t have it too bad here in the UK after all - at least right now anyway - but I find myself wondering how long it will be until the UK suffers the same fate, especially if surveillance crazy May is still at the controls (although the Labour prospects are unlikely to be any better). 10 years? 20 years? The chilling part is that China have said if it proves to be a success they’ll be offering their “system” for sale to other government’s around the world to implement in their own countries .
