Zero sympathy. Gives us all a bad name unfortunately.
Along with…
Tomasz Kroker, this idiot will be the reason in-cab driver facing cameras become law.
I weep for the future.
If there classing taking your hands off the wheel to eat as dangerous driving there really with be a driver shortage
yourhavingalarf:
Along with…Tomasz Kroker, this idiot will be the reason in-cab driver facing cameras become law.
I weep for the future.
But isn’t this just driving like the good old days like many bang on about wanting the job to go back to? Maybe those good old days weren’t actually all that good at all.
In cab cameras wouldn’t matter. All it does it make things easier for the police. And I say easier because any incident investigation would result in a mobile being looked into and therefore all data would be revealed that way anyway.
So no I still disagree with in cab cameras. But the driver I have absolutely zero sympathy for.
The other…
Point to note about this is, despite the cameras in the cab which he must have been aware of, his behaviour didn’t change.
Complacent moron - it was only a matter time for this driver.
Conor:
yourhavingalarf:
Along with…Tomasz Kroker, this idiot will be the reason in-cab driver facing cameras become law.
I weep for the future.
But isn’t this just driving like the good old days like many bang on about wanting the job to go back to? Maybe those good old days weren’t actually all that good at all.
We didn’t have mobile phones in the good old days, we used to tip in Milan and then spend five minutes furiously pumping Gettonis into a payphone to get the backload details, then the next time we were in contact with anyone was when we got back to the Wheelhouse in Dover. 
I been texting and driving for 26 years and i never killed anyone!
what does this mean (judge’s words)
When someone drives with their hands off the wheel, using a mobile phone, driving while using their elbows and eating at the same time, it is a continuation of dangerous driving, and this case included some 42 incidents.”
yourhavingalarf:
The other…Point to note about this is, despite the cameras in the cab which he must have been aware of, his behaviour didn’t change.
Exactly.
Cameras in cabs are solely to catch you out, this would not be the first time he drove like this,.so how come he still had a job…so the company should have some responsibility pointed towards them, …if only to have the action of fitting these things to spy on their drivers backfire on them. 
As you said, he was aware of the camera in the cab,.and he continuously and habitually did illegal and dangerous acts whilst driving…so obviously a total thick ■■■■ of the highest order. 
Irrespective of the camera he would have got nicked anyway when they checked his phone.
The guy’s a ■■■■ he asked for all he got.
Another great ambassador for his trade.
For those who are anti camera, you might ponder why companies put them in. To catch drivers out? I don’t think so - if they were that interested they wouldn’t employ muppets like this guy.
No the reason for cameras is that they save money for the company. Typical scenario - car driver says lorry drove into me, I want a million pounds. Video shows car drove into lorry, case closed.
And that’s on average, including the knob gobblers such as we are discussing. If you’re the type of driver who generally is doing the right thing the camera is far more likely to save your reputation than the reverse.
Event triggered cameras are the way to go, if used sensibly. I dare say this guy had near misses before which could have been picked up - it’s a disgrace that these prats get away with it.
From my view in my cab ,
I find the worst offenders are the wanna be footballers wives in there
4x4s taking the kids to school or off to the local outlet centre to buy more clothes.
The in cab camera was probably just a sop to the insurance company and then ignored for ever more.
Monsterbrown:
Another great ambassador for his trade.For those who are anti camera, you might ponder why companies put them in. To catch drivers out? I don’t think so - if they were that interested they wouldn’t employ muppets like this guy.
No the reason for cameras is that they save money for the company. Typical scenario - car driver says lorry drove into me, I want a million pounds. Video shows car drove into lorry, case closed.
And that’s on average, including the knob gobblers such as we are discussing. If you’re the type of driver who generally is doing the right thing the camera is far more likely to save your reputation than the reverse.
Event triggered cameras are the way to go, if used sensibly. I dare say this guy had near misses before which could have been picked up - it’s a disgrace that these prats get away with it.
Ok so you’ve swallowed and regurgitated all the official line rhetoric ■■■■■■■■ dished out by all companies to try and sell this affront and insult to a ‘proper’ drivers professionalism.
You missed the main bit out, the usual chestnut mantra of the convinced, the servile, the gullible the naive and the brainwashed…
That is…
‘‘If you are doing nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to worry about’’.
For every ONE knobhead banged to rights like this one , where these cameras are ‘‘justified’’ there are hundreds being generally snooped on and reprimanded for minor issues.
Do you work in a transport office by any chance?
Monsterbrown:
Another great ambassador for his trade.For those who are anti camera, you might ponder why companies put them in. To catch drivers out? I don’t think so - if they were that interested they wouldn’t employ muppets like this guy.
No the reason for cameras is that they save money for the company. Typical scenario - car driver says lorry drove into me, I want a million pounds. Video shows car drove into lorry, case closed.
And that’s on average, including the knob gobblers such as we are discussing. If you’re the type of driver who generally is doing the right thing the camera is far more likely to save your reputation than the reverse.
Event triggered cameras are the way to go, if used sensibly. I dare say this guy had near misses before which could have been picked up - it’s a disgrace that these prats get away with it.
Surely then an all round camera system would work? I’ve got one which covers pretty much everything externally and I’ve no issue with that whatsoever.
toonsy:
Monsterbrown:
Another great ambassador for his trade.For those who are anti camera, you might ponder why companies put them in. To catch drivers out? I don’t think so - if they were that interested they wouldn’t employ muppets like this guy.
No the reason for cameras is that they save money for the company. Typical scenario - car driver says lorry drove into me, I want a million pounds. Video shows car drove into lorry, case closed.
And that’s on average, including the knob gobblers such as we are discussing. If you’re the type of driver who generally is doing the right thing the camera is far more likely to save your reputation than the reverse.
Event triggered cameras are the way to go, if used sensibly. I dare say this guy had near misses before which could have been picked up - it’s a disgrace that these prats get away with it.
Surely then an all round camera system would work? I’ve got one which covers pretty much everything externally and I’ve no issue with that whatsoever.
Exactly, nor me, bring it on.
That is and would be quite adequate to prove a drivers innocence in an rta.
I have no desire to be spied on whilst working whether it be for one minute or 24 hours.
Those in cab cameras are only checked after something has happenes.If they were checked often they wont have any drivers left .
WheelsofCardiff:
Those in cab cameras are only checked after something has happenes.If they were checked often they wont have any drivers left .
Couldn’t give a ■■■■, and tbf you don’t really know that do you.
Not saying they’re spying on you all day, but even so, in my eyes it’s still a ■■■■ liberty.
Texting while driving is mandatory in most parts of Birmingham.