robroy:
You just carry on believing that Rowley, you usually swallow everything they tell you, where as me I ain’t half as naive and 3 times as streetwise mate.
If you can’t see the truth yet, you ain’t been in the job long enough, despite your ‘years of experience’ you told us about.
I’m not naive. Maybe just because I wasn’t driving in these good old times that I hear so much about my opinion is different. And that’s my opinion, I’ve no issue with the camera. And yes I do have the if I do nothing wrong I’ve nothing to worry about attitude. If the company eventually use that to twist something and get rid of me then it’s no loss to me I’ll go and work for someone else.
Like I told you yesterday with your type of attitude you’ll go far in your career as a modern driver…(it may be not a happy career but it’ll be your own doing.)
I did one day for WH Malcolm with my agency with what was supposed to be an ongoing assignment but by 14:30 I had phoned my agency handler and said “Err, I won’t be working here again”. Dreadful firm to work for.
Luckily I’ve never worked for a company that has fitted driver facing cameras, I’ve had various forward facing as well as rear facing cab corner cameras, I’ve forgotten those on more than one occasion when I’ve needed to make an emergency bladder stop
I worked for a company that had audio record added to the camera system, but after several complaints they turned the audio off.
I wouldn’t work for a company that becomes over intrusive with their drivers, and if you feel strongly enough then neither should you, it’s an individuals choice and if you’re willing to put up with it then that’s up to you.
I fully understand why companies feel the need to fit camera systems, increasing insurance and maintenance costs through driver neglect can force some companies to fold, some drivers can’t get out of the yard without posting on social media or taking a selfie, others watch netflix or some other streaming service.
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.
Robbie?..Btw Rowley mate, …it doesn’t REALLY annoy me, I was only joking.
We’re never going to agree on this subject, so we’ll knock it on the head I reckon…you’re getting a bit tedious.
Top Tip.
I’ve heard through the grapevine (and not through experience )that KY jelly is a better lube than vaseline.
That’s a good tip free from Robbie for your future career, and it’s yours for free.
You’re welcome.
They actually helped out a driver at my place when a member of the public reported him saying he was on his phone whilst driving at this time on this date. Company downloaded the footage from the driver facing camera and saw that he wasn’t.
Why not give them a chance? They may actually prove your innocence one day.
Sounds like your company were keen to hang someone out to dry?
Did they not ask the accuser of any evidence first and foremost?
Keen to hang someone out to dry? Or maybe they were just being a responsible company and taking an allegation of a driver being on his phone whilst in control of artic seriously and properly investigating it.
Look I don’t know the ins and outs. I just know that a driver was immediately proved innocent because of the cameras. Now is that such a bad thing?
“immediately proved innocent” you are innocent until proved Guilty!!!
Get some self-respect Rowley010.
Ive not drivin a truck in 15 months thank ■■■■ !!!
Grumpy Dad:
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.
Actually i do blame the companies.
For various reasons they employed a number sub standard drivers, who soon proved what they were in various ways and instead of bravely nipping them in the bud and getting shot, or retraining if possible, instead they went for the easy option, tar everyone with the same brush, one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator, which inevitably leads to more sub standard people being employed.
Treat everyone like they are the most incompetent fool the company managed to find, issue memos that everyone including those who never cause any issues and have done the job well for years have to sign, fit more and more systems and employ more methods to stop idiots from doing what idiots do, each step in the dumbing down process allowing the next worse level of competence to seek and gain employment there, a faster way to demoralise and ruin an operation i have yet to see, this is downskilling not skilling up, where and when exactly is someone going to say STOP and have a rethink.
Driver facing cameras are just the latest in a long line of answers to the problems of management who failed to spot and deal at the time with those not up to the job, but then its a job to know who your staff are when you hide away in an office anything from several hundred yards to several hundred miles from the people you employ and who you should know, and instead rely on the reports from junior admin/management who have also learned its best to tell higher ups what they want to hear instead of the actual truth.
Grumpy Dad:
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.
Actually i do blame the companies.
For various reasons they employed a number sub standard drivers, who soon proved what they were in various ways and instead of bravely nipping them in the bud and getting shot, or retraining if possible, instead they went for the easy option, tar everyone with the same brush, one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator, which inevitably leads to more sub standard people being employed.
Treat everyone like they are the most incompetent fool the company managed to find, issue memos that everyone including those who never cause any issues and have done the job well for years have to sign, fit more and more systems and employ more methods to stop idiots from doing what idiots do, each step in the dumbing down process allowing the next worse level of competence to seek and gain employment there, a faster way to demoralise and ruin an operation i have yet to see, this is downskilling not skilling up, where and when exactly is someone going to say STOP and have a rethink.
Driver facing cameras are just the latest in a long line of answers to the problems of management who failed to spot and deal at the time with those not up to the job, but then its a job to know who your staff are when you hide away in an office anything from several hundred yards to several hundred miles from the people you employ and who you should know, and instead rely on the reports from junior admin/management who have also learned its best to tell higher ups what they want to hear instead of the actual truth.
+1. Not a single thing I can disagree with there Juddian. You win the internet my friend.
Grumpy Dad:
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.
Actually i do blame the companies.
For various reasons they employed a number sub standard drivers, who soon proved what they were in various ways and instead of bravely nipping them in the bud and getting shot, or retraining if possible, instead they went for the easy option, tar everyone with the same brush, one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator, which inevitably leads to more sub standard people being employed.
Treat everyone like they are the most incompetent fool the company managed to find, issue memos that everyone including those who never cause any issues and have done the job well for years have to sign, fit more and more systems and employ more methods to stop idiots from doing what idiots do, each step in the dumbing down process allowing the next worse level of competence to seek and gain employment there, a faster way to demoralise and ruin an operation i have yet to see, this is downskilling not skilling up, where and when exactly is someone going to say STOP and have a rethink.
Driver facing cameras are just the latest in a long line of answers to the problems of management who failed to spot and deal at the time with those not up to the job, but then its a job to know who your staff are when you hide away in an office anything from several hundred yards to several hundred miles from the people you employ and who you should know, and instead rely on the reports from junior admin/management who have also learned its best to tell higher ups what they want to hear instead of the actual truth.
I’ve screenshotted that excellent post Juddian.
I’m going to show our lot this when we next have our next (regular) argument.
For the benefit of Rowley…‘An argument’ is something you have in this case with your firm when you don’t agree with something they say, do or both, it IS allowed you know …just to clarify.
robroy:
Sorry Jakey, my mistake.
It just shows your new buddy is getting more and more like you every day, and like a lot of old couples merging into one.
Just mark his card will you, …You are the only one allowed to call me ‘Robby’
Ha, we may not always agree but you do make me snigger from time to time.
Maoster/Robroy, thankyou for the kind words, it’s something i feel particularly strongly about, like yourselves because it’s desperately sad to see our industry plunging it seems headlong ever further down the dumbing down route.
They actually helped out a driver at my place when a member of the public reported him saying he was on his phone whilst driving at this time on this date. Company downloaded the footage from the driver facing camera and saw that he wasn’t.
Why not give them a chance? They may actually prove your innocence one day.
Sounds like your company were keen to hang someone out to dry?
Did they not ask the accuser of any evidence first and foremost?
Keen to hang someone out to dry? Or maybe they were just being a responsible company and taking an allegation of a driver being on his phone whilst in control of artic seriously and properly investigating it.
Look I don’t know the ins and outs. I just know that a driver was immediately proved innocent because of the cameras. Now is that such a bad thing?
“immediately proved innocent” you are innocent until proved Guilty!!!
Get some self-respect Rowley010.
Ive not drivin a truck in 15 months thank [zb] !!!
Of course your innocent til proven guilty. And is this instance the driver facing camera proved that innocence. You absolute moron.
robroy:
Robbie?..Btw Rowley mate, …it doesn’t REALLY annoy me, I was only joking.
We’re never going to agree on this subject, so we’ll knock it on the head I reckon…you’re getting a bit tedious.
Top Tip.
I’ve heard through the grapevine (and not through experience )that KY jelly is a better lube than vaseline.
That’s a good tip free from Robbie for your future career, and it’s yours for free.
You’re welcome.
You think I’d try and annoy you on purpose rob? Nah not me.
I do find you a bit tedious as well so at least it’s mutual.
Grumpy Dad:
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.
Actually i do blame the companies.
For various reasons they employed a number sub standard drivers, who soon proved what they were in various ways and instead of bravely nipping them in the bud and getting shot, or retraining if possible, instead they went for the easy option, tar everyone with the same brush, one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator, which inevitably leads to more sub standard people being employed.
Treat everyone like they are the most incompetent fool the company managed to find, issue memos that everyone including those who never cause any issues and have done the job well for years have to sign, fit more and more systems and employ more methods to stop idiots from doing what idiots do, each step in the dumbing down process allowing the next worse level of competence to seek and gain employment there, a faster way to demoralise and ruin an operation i have yet to see, this is downskilling not skilling up, where and when exactly is someone going to say STOP and have a rethink.
Driver facing cameras are just the latest in a long line of answers to the problems of management who failed to spot and deal at the time with those not up to the job, but then its a job to know who your staff are when you hide away in an office anything from several hundred yards to several hundred miles from the people you employ and who you should know, and instead rely on the reports from junior admin/management who have also learned its best to tell higher ups what they want to hear instead of the actual truth.
Perhaps if you included the previous paragraph of my comment you’d see why I can understand a company wanting to protect its investments and reduce its ever increasing maintenance costs and insurance payouts.
“I fully understand why companies feel the need to fit camera systems, increasing insurance and maintenance costs through driver neglect can force some companies to fold, some drivers can’t get out of the yard without posting on social media or taking a selfie, others watch netflix or some other streaming service.
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.”
I do agree with you that companies should be more selective with recruitment, it’s not as though getting a licence isn’t hard to achieve, but unless a company rep babysits a driver during his shift, a driver is free to do as he pleases in the driving seat, ie Facebook etc.
Years ago Eddie Stobart would fine his drivers if they were to be seen by the public and reported out of uniform while on shift, this included the company tie, back in those days there was no method to prove a driver was or wasn’t, but today there is, and sadly it’s got to a stage where there’s too many incidents where drivers are no longer giving their full attention to the job in hand and being distracted by video chats etc.
Unfortunately no amount of retraining will help, as soon as the driver is through the gate he’s basically out of sight out of mind and being trusted by the company to carry out his daily task giving it his full attention.
I haven’t worked for a company that have had these fitted, and I wouldn’t but then again I wouldn’t work for a large company, and if a driver feels strongly against company policies then he /she / they should look for something else.
robroy:
Sorry Jakey, my mistake.
It just shows your new buddy is getting more and more like you every day, and like a lot of old couples merging into one.
Just mark his card will you, …You are the only one allowed to call me ‘Robby’
Ha, we may not always agree but you do make me snigger from time to time.
Robroy you also make me snigger from time to time because of how wrong you are
robroy:
Sorry Jakey, my mistake.
It just shows your new buddy is getting more and more like you every day, and like a lot of old couples merging into one.
Just mark his card will you, …You are the only one allowed to call me ‘Robby’
Ha, we may not always agree but you do make me snigger from time to time.
Robroy you also make me snigger from time to time because of how wrong you are
Ah well,.as long as I can make people smile, my life is complete.
They actually helped out a driver at my place when a member of the public reported him saying he was on his phone whilst driving at this time on this date. Company downloaded the footage from the driver facing camera and saw that he wasn’t.
Why not give them a chance? They may actually prove your innocence one day.
Sounds like your company were keen to hang someone out to dry?
Did they not ask the accuser of any evidence first and foremost?
Keen to hang someone out to dry? Or maybe they were just being a responsible company and taking an allegation of a driver being on his phone whilst in control of artic seriously and properly investigating it.
Look I don’t know the ins and outs. I just know that a driver was immediately proved innocent because of the cameras. Now is that such a bad thing?
“immediately proved innocent” you are innocent until proved Guilty!!!
Get some self-respect Rowley010.
Ive not drivin a truck in 15 months thank [zb] !!!
Of course your innocent til proven guilty. And is this instance the driver facing camera proved that innocence. You absolute moron.
The idea of innocent until proven guilty is that there should be no need for the driver facing camera. The burden should have been on the accuser to provide evidence of the driver committing some kind of wrong, not the other way around
Grumpy Dad:
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.
Actually i do blame the companies.
For various reasons they employed a number sub standard drivers, who soon proved what they were in various ways and instead of bravely nipping them in the bud and getting shot, or retraining if possible, instead they went for the easy option, tar everyone with the same brush, one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator, which inevitably leads to more sub standard people being employed.
Treat everyone like they are the most incompetent fool the company managed to find, issue memos that everyone including those who never cause any issues and have done the job well for years have to sign, fit more and more systems and employ more methods to stop idiots from doing what idiots do, each step in the dumbing down process allowing the next worse level of competence to seek and gain employment there, a faster way to demoralise and ruin an operation i have yet to see, this is downskilling not skilling up, where and when exactly is someone going to say STOP and have a rethink.
Driver facing cameras are just the latest in a long line of answers to the problems of management who failed to spot and deal at the time with those not up to the job, but then its a job to know who your staff are when you hide away in an office anything from several hundred yards to several hundred miles from the people you employ and who you should know, and instead rely on the reports from junior admin/management who have also learned its best to tell higher ups what they want to hear instead of the actual truth.
Perhaps if you included the previous paragraph of my comment you’d see why I can understand a company wanting to protect its investments and reduce its ever increasing maintenance costs and insurance payouts.
“I fully understand why companies feel the need to fit camera systems, increasing insurance and maintenance costs through driver neglect can force some companies to fold, some drivers can’t get out of the yard without posting on social media or taking a selfie, others watch netflix or some other streaming service.
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.”
I do agree with you that companies should be more selective with recruitment, it’s not as though getting a licence isn’t hard to achieve, but unless a company rep babysits a driver during his shift, a driver is free to do as he pleases in the driving seat, ie Facebook etc.
Years ago Eddie Stobart would fine his drivers if they were to be seen by the public and reported out of uniform while on shift, this included the company tie, back in those days there was no method to prove a driver was or wasn’t, but today there is, and sadly it’s got to a stage where there’s too many incidents where drivers are no longer giving their full attention to the job in hand and being distracted by video chats etc.
Unfortunately no amount of retraining will help, as soon as the driver is through the gate he’s basically out of sight out of mind and being trusted by the company to carry out his daily task giving it his full attention.
I haven’t worked for a company that have had these fitted, and I wouldn’t but then again I wouldn’t work for a large company, and if a driver feels strongly against company policies then he /she / they should look for something else.
And where is the money saved being spent? Improved drivers conditions or the gaffers new range rover fund? Answers on a postcard please.
The answer is really simple. At the minute, some jobs are so poor that they’ll only attract idiots. When these idiots do what they do, something idiotic, they just start work the very next day on another rubbish job. Wash rinse repeat.
What’s needed is a job that people dont want to lose. A job that attracts people who arent idiots to start with. Better conditions, higher calibre applicant, pick of the crop. Better conditions than local rivals and nobody wants to leave (or sacked). People who dont want to leave perform better. Better staff and weedle the idiots out of this industry forever.
But no, these places take the cheap option. Treat all drivers like idiots and when all the decent drivers have gone to places like those I described above, all your left with is idiots and the problems they cause.
Of course your innocent til proven guilty. And is this instance the driver facing camera proved that innocence. You absolute moron.
[/quote]
The idea of innocent until proven guilty is that there should be no need for the driver facing camera. The burden should have been on the accuser to provide evidence of the driver committing some kind of wrong, not the other way around
But it’s nice to know you can be instantly clearer especially if it’s your word against someone else’s and there’s any doubt, the camera means it’s not just your word anymore it means there is clear evidence your side of it.
Another example where I know it’s helped someone out is in an incident whilst changing lanes car in the blind spot (which I’m always dubious of the blind spot excuse) but the camera showed that he did in fact check all his mirrors before moving.
Rowley010:
Of course your innocent til proven guilty. And is this instance the driver facing camera proved that innocence. You absolute moron.
The idea of innocent until proven guilty is that there should be no need for the driver facing camera. The burden should have been on the accuser to provide evidence of the driver committing some kind of wrong, not the other way around
But it’s nice to know you can be instantly clearer especially if it’s your word against someone else’s and there’s any doubt, the camera means it’s not just your word anymore it means there is clear evidence your side of it.
Another example where I know it’s helped someone out is in an incident whilst changing lanes car in the blind spot (which I’m always dubious of the blind spot excuse) but the camera showed that he did in fact check all his mirrors before moving.
As much as I make you snigger, you make me cringe bud, seriously.
)that KY jelly is a better lube than vaseline.
…just to clarify. 
