Conor:
Their trucks, permission not needed.I guess you’ll be handing in your notice on Monday if they are?
The agency I work for (when I can be arsed to work) have had it explained to them that I do not drive vehicles with driver-facing cameras. I accept that other people may not be as fortunate as I am in being able to turn down work, but if I wanted to have a camera looking at me all day then I would go and live in Russia or East Germany in the 1950s.
Winseer:
What would be more interesting legally, is if it is possible to “sack a driver” for going out of their way to sabotage the driver-facing camera…Eg. Stick a bit of masking tape over the cabeye, but leave all the outside ones working normally…
I think yes. We don’t and won’t be getting them, I send them out so I don’t have to look at them. 
However (leaving aside Juddians thoughts on the management right to have them in the cab), the scenario would be.
Inward facing cameras installed, everyone huffs and puffs.
One driver covers camera up, gets a call to say, you possibly don’t realise but…
Next time it’s in the office for a chat
Then a formal warning, or two
Then goodbye.
If it isn’t illegal, then you can argue all you want, but it won’t go anywhere.
And as they become more common, which they are, it’s harder to argue against them.
Personally, I agree with Juddian (as usual).
Juddian:
…i won’t say too much cos why should people not in the union benefit from good research and back up…
Hilarious.
Of course for those with the power of independent thought you could always look up the ICO guidelines and of course the publication they made giving the guidelines on the implementation of the impact assessments should your employer choose to look at these cameras, you could also then look up the DPA guidelines and rules regarding the use of employee surveillance, in particular the parts regarding amount of personal data your employer can hold not being excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.
Juddians thought master is correct though on one thing,which he can’t tell the rest of the class as we haven’t paid our subs, poor implementation of the impact assessment can and has led to challenges from employees. Whilst juddian is being a good subservient brother his bosses have been speaking in various industry publications regarding this issue for a few years now so not so secret…oops.
For those of you wanting links for all this, I’m sorry, it’s all about me and mine as Juddian proved with the above quote, and he expects the drivers in this industry to come together…
Or just use google to get the info?
I don’t like the thought of them, I think they are a step too far but thankfully the company I was working for and maybe one day will again don’t use them.
Harry Monk:
if I wanted to have a camera looking at me all day then I would go and live in Russia or East Germany in the 1950s.
Or sadly most of the uk these days, not many places you aren’t being watched these days, what you need to do is escape the masses, a boat on a canal in the middle of no where would be perfect… 
Norfolkinclue1:
Harry Monk:
Conor:
Their trucks, permission not needed.I guess you’ll be handing in your notice on Monday if they are?
if I wanted to have a camera looking at me all day then I would go and live in Russia or East Germany in the 1950s.
Or sadly most of the uk these days, not many places you aren’t being watched these days, what you need to do is escape the masses, a boat on a canal in the middle of no where would be perfect…
You make a very valid and fair point re cameras filming us in the UK daily, my problem with driver facing cameras is that unlike general cctv cameras these are aimed specifically at you the driver and not just at random passers by. I’m not trick cyclist but I can imagine that having a camera trained permanently on a person can have a seriously debilitating effect on their mental wellbeing. At the end of the day yes, I personally would walk away from any company that used them.
Don’t agree with it at all its the "if you don’t trust me to do a job then I don’t want it " BUT there is more posts on here about different companies installing them might be the time that more jobs have them fitted that don’t so if having a camera facing the driver isn’t an option it cuts down the ever growing smaller pond of decent jobs to just a trickle.
On the other hand if a company A is having more accidents than company B and installs cameras finds certain “drivers” are on the phone watching TV etc and cameras stop it then they are usefull.
Ok fair enough I don’t drive anymore ( big sad face ) so can see it from the outside sort of thing but I still don’t think its a good idea.
albion:
I think yes. We don’t and won’t be getting them, I send them out so I don’t have to look at them.Inward facing cameras installed, everyone huffs and puffs.
One driver covers camera up, gets a call to say, you possibly don’t realise but…
Next time it’s in the office for a chat
Then a formal warning, or two
Then goodbye.If it isn’t illegal, then you can argue all you want, but it won’t go anywhere.
And as they become more common, which they are, it’s harder to argue against them.
Personally, I agree with Juddian (as usual).
You WILL be getting them Ms. Albion because at some point in the not-too-distant future because the insurance companies will make them compulsory. Huff and puff all you want, along with your drivers, but those will become the terms of insurance across the board. If you can’t see that this is the thin end of the wedge then you’re all being extremely shortsighted. The same ‘thin end of the wedge’ is happening with private motor insurance with regards telematics. It’s now become “accepted” with the younger drivers that you have to have a black box if you don’t want to pay £10k a year to insure your 1 litre Corsa. The next step will be to dangle the telematics carrot in front of older drivers in exchange for lower premiums and with some governmental pressure by organisations like Brake claiming how they’ve saved a million kittens and small children from being killed they will become compulsory fitment to all vehicles that wish to drive on UK roads.
Currently as a driver you have a CHOICE whether or not you wish to drive for a haulier that has them fitted. Enjoy that choice while it lasts because I reckon in a decade’s time that choice will no longer exist. You will either drive your truck with a CCTV pointed at your dial all day on a live access feed or you won’t be driving a truck for a living. And that includes the unionised companies too because it’s pretty obvious what will happen if they become compulsory for valid insurance cover.
I don’t agree with them one bit, but they’re going to be part of the job, like it or not. Get used to them or get out of the industry as those are your only 2 choices.
Norfolkinclue1:
Harry Monk:
if I wanted to have a camera looking at me all day then I would go and live in Russia or East Germany in the 1950s.Or sadly most of the uk these days, not many places you aren’t being watched these days, what you need to do is escape the masses, a boat on a canal in the middle of no where would be perfect…
I think the big difference comes between being watched in a public place, a supermarket or petrol station for example, and being watched in a place where there has traditionally been an expectation of privacy, such as a truck cab. The second instance is more akin to being filmed while going to the toilet.
It is up to the industry to decide which direction it wants to take, and quite probably younger drivers will be more accepting of something I personally consider to be intrusive and detrimental to the safety of my driving. But then the huge advantage of doing agency work is that you can set out your terms from the outset and if the customer has different ideas then you can decline to work for them.
Rob K:
albion:
I think yes. We don’t and won’t be getting them, I send them out so I don’t have to look at them.Inward facing cameras installed, everyone huffs and puffs.
One driver covers camera up, gets a call to say, you possibly don’t realise but…
Next time it’s in the office for a chat
Then a formal warning, or two
Then goodbye.If it isn’t illegal, then you can argue all you want, but it won’t go anywhere.
And as they become more common, which they are, it’s harder to argue against them.
Personally, I agree with Juddian (as usual).
You WILL be getting them Ms. Albion because at some point in the not-too-distant future because the insurance companies will make them compulsory. Huff and puff all you want, along with your drivers, but those will become the terms of insurance across the board. If you can’t see that this is the thin end of the wedge then you’re all being extremely shortsighted. The same ‘thin end of the wedge’ is happening with private motor insurance with regards telematics. It’s now become “accepted” with the younger drivers that you have to have a black box if you don’t want to pay £10k a year to insure your 1 litre Corsa. The next step will be to dangle the telematics carrot in front of older drivers in exchange for lower premiums and with some governmental pressure by organisations like Brake claiming how they’ve saved a million kittens and small children from being killed they will become compulsory fitment to all vehicles that wish to drive on UK roads.
Currently as a driver you have a CHOICE whether or not you wish to drive for a haulier that has them fitted. Enjoy that choice while it lasts because I reckon in a decade’s time that choice will no longer exist. You will either drive your truck with a CCTV pointed at your dial all day on a live access feed or you won’t be driving a truck for a living. And that includes the unionised companies too because it’s pretty obvious what will happen if they become compulsory for valid insurance cover.
I don’t agree with them one bit, but they’re going to be part of the job, like it or not. Get used to them or get out of the industry as those are your only 2 choices.
Actually Rob, I can promise you I won’t. I’d suggest a bet, but that would be unfair on you.
Trukkertone:
we are getting new motors this weekend…
supposed to be all about FORS and all the safety stuff…
don’t know yet but i suspect they might have driver facing cameras…
how do we stand with these and the privacy laws ?
would our company LEGALLY need our written permission to be filmed ?
Camera looking at the driver definatly nowt to do with fors
Harry Monk:
Norfolkinclue1:
Harry Monk:
if I wanted to have a camera looking at me all day then I would go and live in Russia or East Germany in the 1950s.Or sadly most of the uk these days, not many places you aren’t being watched these days, what you need to do is escape the masses, a boat on a canal in the middle of no where would be perfect…
I think the big difference comes between being watched in a public place, a supermarket or petrol station for example, and being watched in a place where there has traditionally been an expectation of privacy, such as a truck cab. The second instance is more akin to being filmed while going to the toilet.
It is up to the industry to decide which direction it wants to take, and quite probably younger drivers will be more accepting of something I personally consider to be intrusive and detrimental to the safety of my driving. But then the huge advantage of doing agency work is that you can set out your terms from the outset and if the customer has different ideas then you can decline to work for them.
Agree.
I think you’re right about the attitudes of younger people towards cameras,my other half works in the realms of internet media and says the young people she works with ( early 20’s ) are obsessed with how they look and being seen, she says they are more interested in social media and image than going out and getting drunk or high like the youth of previous generations, some new drivers will probably see an in cab camera as a 15 hour selfie!
Doesn’t affect me but I suppose they are handy as evidence in accident situations such as the one with the foreign guy on the A34 a couple of years ago playing with his phone etc? I wonder if the bus in the A47 crash was fitted with one?
Pete.
albion:
Rob K:
albion:
I think yes. We don’t and won’t be getting them, I send them out so I don’t have to look at them.Inward facing cameras installed, everyone huffs and puffs.
One driver covers camera up, gets a call to say, you possibly don’t realise but…
Next time it’s in the office for a chat
Then a formal warning, or two
Then goodbye.If it isn’t illegal, then you can argue all you want, but it won’t go anywhere.
And as they become more common, which they are, it’s harder to argue against them.
Personally, I agree with Juddian (as usual).
You WILL be getting them Ms. Albion because at some point in the not-too-distant future because the insurance companies will make them compulsory. Huff and puff all you want, along with your drivers, but those will become the terms of insurance across the board. If you can’t see that this is the thin end of the wedge then you’re all being extremely shortsighted. The same ‘thin end of the wedge’ is happening with private motor insurance with regards telematics. It’s now become “accepted” with the younger drivers that you have to have a black box if you don’t want to pay £10k a year to insure your 1 litre Corsa. The next step will be to dangle the telematics carrot in front of older drivers in exchange for lower premiums and with some governmental pressure by organisations like Brake claiming how they’ve saved a million kittens and small children from being killed they will become compulsory fitment to all vehicles that wish to drive on UK roads.
Currently as a driver you have a CHOICE whether or not you wish to drive for a haulier that has them fitted. Enjoy that choice while it lasts because I reckon in a decade’s time that choice will no longer exist. You will either drive your truck with a CCTV pointed at your dial all day on a live access feed or you won’t be driving a truck for a living. And that includes the unionised companies too because it’s pretty obvious what will happen if they become compulsory for valid insurance cover.
I don’t agree with them one bit, but they’re going to be part of the job, like it or not. Get used to them or get out of the industry as those are your only 2 choices.
Actually Rob, I can promise you I won’t.
You planning to wrap up the company then or sell it? In the interim period you will find insurance companies that don’t insist on them and will insure your fleet and drivers for a higher premium (naturally), but as time progresses those will become increasingly rare until the inevitable point where they are made compulsory as a condition of insurance. So what are you going to do then, or was your a reply above a denial and that it will never happen so won’t affect your company? You strike me as being quite a worldly individual so I’m surprised at you nonchalantly brushing this off.
Funny, I remember an owner driver of old make a similar bet with me on here and ended up with egg on his face around 5 years later. I’m still awaiting the £1000 from him. You should tread carefully wanting to place bets with me! 
Daytrunker:
On the other hand if a company A is having more accidents than company B and installs cameras finds certain “drivers” are on the phone watching TV etc and cameras stop it then they are usefull.
.
If company A was having more accidents and kept proper records as it should it would know which drivers were having them, via records and tacho data.
My understanding would be that in that case a blanket use of cctv wouldn’t be allowed but the monitoring of each indivdual would be. That’s when you should know your rights regarding permission and use of data by your employer. It’s also where you could blur the lines between a need for covert camera or “safety” camera and where a less scrupulous employer would try to get cameras fitted. Also why the impact assessment is important.
Stanley Mitchell:
ezydriver:
It won’t be long before inward facing cameras become intelligent, and able to recognise misdemeanours, such as drivers taking eyes off the road for more than a given number of seconds, drinking a sneaky coffee, or god forbid, yawning. And what will happen when it has recognised such? It will automatically send the footage to DVSA (as a future condition of belonging to FORS), and the offender either fined, re-educated, or sacked.The future is bleak.
DHL have had something in the cab that detects when you are tired, I had a “voice” tell me to pull over one morning going south on the M1…Scared the living daylights out of me…never did need that “rest”, talk about adrenalin
I know it was trial between Volvo + DHL, and it was a few years ago, not too sure if it progressed any further …
Such systems are common in cars these days, and have been for a couple of years now. Most of them analyse steering inputs, lane/road positioning etc rather than directly monitoring the driver’s face/eyes with a camera.
Save quoting Rob, our insurers don’t require tracking, any cameras out are in facing and I get an excellent deal on my insurance.
I wouldn’t argue that one day they will be compulsory, but let’s just say for the last two years I haven’t needed to work and it’s made a cantankerous, obdurate woman, even more cantankerous and obdurate. 
I can promise you would lose that bet, take it if you want, but as I say it would be unfair as I’m the one that is in charge of the outcome. 
PS because of the explosives, there’s only two companies that will insure us anyway, so I don’t have much of a choice.
Norfolkinclue1:
Daytrunker:
On the other hand if a company A is having more accidents than company B and installs cameras finds certain “drivers” are on the phone watching TV etc and cameras stop it then they are usefull.
.If company A was having more accidents and kept proper records as it should it would know which drivers were having them, via records and tacho data.
My understanding would be that in that case a blanket use of cctv wouldn’t be allowed but the monitoring of each indivdual would be. That’s when you should know your rights regarding permission and use of data by your employer. It’s also where you could blur the lines between a need for covert camera or “safety” camera and where a less scrupulous employer would try to get cameras fitted. Also why the impact assessment is important.
Quite agree it would keep a record of why who and where but not why it happened as tacho and records only show who was driving at the moment it happened not in cab,sorry didn’t explain myself properly in the first post.
The only circumstance under which I would even climb into a cab with an inward-facing camera would be for a driver-assessment programme. For a normal working day, forget it! Mercifully, I’m retired so it no longer matters for me. Robert
albion:
Save quoting Rob, our insurers don’t require tracking, any cameras out are in facing and I get an excellent deal on my insurance.I wouldn’t argue that one day they will be compulsory, but let’s just say for the last two years I haven’t needed to work and it’s made a cantankerous, obdurate woman, even more cantankerous and obdurate.
I can promise you would lose that bet, take it if you want, but as I say it would be unfair as I’m the one that is in charge of the outcome.
Two people involved in this post.
One is afraid & can’t see through the fog. The other one runs a business and if for WHATEVER reason things change, they will simply diversify & crack on…