Ive just renewed my insurances last month, asked if fitting trackers, and outside cameras would produce a discount, short answer NO, it would cost me to do it. Trackers they would give about £50 a year per vehicle discount, wouldn't cover the monthly/yearly subscription costs never mind buying and fitting the units. Outward cameras they *might* give a lower excess, but wouldn't commit to any discounts offered, but wont be over £50, and could be zero, Im quite happy with my current insurance excess amount, and would want to see money off the premium before considering them.
albion:
eagerbeaver:
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…
I don’t think I’ll peak EB, until you’ve added one of my uniforms to the pile, until then I’ve failed in life.
I wouldn’t cope mate.
Being treated with respect. Paid well. Trusted etc. Seems a ridiculous business model to me…
'Salright, EB, everyone’s confused at first, wears off after a few months 
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.
I’d have to disagree with you there Buttons, as any attempt by insurance companies to make “non compliance” some kind of set-up for higher premiums or any other kind of “punishment” (that they would call “dis-inducement”) we all have the choice of either going to a more competetive insurer who isn’t bothered, or charges the same cheap premiums with or without camera… OR - Large fleet operating yards have the option of “laying it themselves”.
I suspect that Stobarts might do this, as they seem overly keen to take on newbie drivers, and don’t seem to be concerned about the insurance rates for the under 25’s…
Could it be that they are “Laying it themselves”? That is, if you smash a stobart vehicle up - it is a straight loss to the company, made up for by everyone else’s ongoing crappy hourly rate?
Insurers won’t make having a driver-facing camera compulsory, BUT they might induce the manufacturer of the actual vehicle to build the damned thing at the factory - with a camera already in it, built in so it is also tamper-proof…?
Since the Supermarkets pay the most, - How come they don’t have cabeyes in them?
With most of the staff “outsourced”, the actual drivers would have no resistance to them, as there’s no Union to get around, and the higher pay scales for agency drivers in there in droves - would easily sign a document “accepting” the cabeyes - in order to get the premium pay…
You don’t hear of many “newbies” wanting to go into the supermarkets - do you?
The multi-droppers will bend over backwards - but not the supermarkets, which are the complete opposite “staff turnover vs Dead man’s shoes” wise…
eagerbeaver:
Being treated with respect. Paid well. Trusted etc. …
Ah yeh, I remember all that.
The days of working with a ‘‘Team firm’’ instead of a ‘‘Them and us’’ outfit.
Oh to go back to that. 
is that one of those jobs where you are a " colleague " and not an employee?
if they had cameras fitted to our mobs here the most likely would make it a topic for a crimewatch special.
1 they would never try to fit them,and 2, they would for the most part be looking for new cannon fodder driverwise.
fair play if the major legit mobs want to use forward ones,but theres no reason apart to crucify a driver for inward ones.
as usual the newbies will bend over and get shafter with more of the old brigade seeking alternative employment elsewhere.
last thing a subby will be wanting is video evidence of a normal days shift. 
dieseldog999:
is that one of those jobs where you are a " colleague " and not an employee?if they had cameras fitted to our mobs here the most likely would make it a topic for a crimewatch special.
1 they would never try to fit them,and 2, they would for the most part be looking for new cannon fodder driverwise.
fair play if the major legit mobs want to use forward ones,but theres no reason apart to crucify a driver for inward ones.
as usual the newbies will bend over and get shafter with more of the old brigade seeking alternative employment elsewhere.
last thing a subby will be wanting is video evidence of a normal days shift.
Yup and one of the ways these things get defeated.
Any company prepared for it’s most loyal reliable competent and careful drivers to walk (and they will because they’ll be snapped up instantly) won’t be around for long…or rather the manager who came up with the idea likely to ruin the owner’s business, as the first batch of resignation letters goes in, won’t be around for long 
Winseer:
I’d have to disagree with you there Buttons, as any attempt by insurance companies to make “non compliance” some kind of set-up for higher premiums or any other kind of “punishment” (that they would call “dis-inducement”) we all have the choice of either going to a more competetive insurer who isn’t bothered, or charges the same cheap premiums with or without camera… OR - Large fleet operating yards have the option of “laying it themselves”.I suspect that Stobarts might do this, as they seem overly keen to take on newbie drivers, and don’t seem to be concerned about the insurance rates for the under 25’s…
Could it be that they are “Laying it themselves”? That is, if you smash a stobart vehicle up - it is a straight loss to the company, made up for by everyone else’s ongoing crappy hourly rate?
Pretty sure that most of the big operators do this. Without naming names I know of at least one that covers all their own damage from their own funds and covers 3rd party claims up to a significant level (£50k is I think the cut-off point) with only bigger claims being passed to the insurers. Claims are initially dealt with by an intermediary “claims management” company. These are the guys who will immediately offer to get 3rd party vehicles repaired at no expense to the owner, and immediately offer a hire car while the repairs are sorted, again at no cost to the owner, even though liability may well be far from clear-cut - it’s all done in the interests of keeping the costs down and avoiding the need for (very costly) legal proceedings. It is these “claims management” companies who insist on cameras etc, not the insurers.
robroy:
eagerbeaver:
Being treated with respect. Paid well. Trusted etc. …Ah yeh, I remember all that.
The days of working with a ‘‘Team firm’’ instead of a ‘‘Them and us’’ outfit.
Oh to go back to that.
I reckon you & I should go to Albion’s gaff mate She would love to have the Chuckle Brothers working for her… 
Rob K:
Norfolkinclue1:
Random tin foil hat garbage, you should actually read up on personal data, its uses,your rights and recourse to justice before you post this kind of [zb].
I think everyone gets your agenda but you do undermine it somewhat with your dramatised bullet pointing.
The only one I will bother with because it’s not laden with paranoid politically driven rants is your alleged BT experience… the last 2 houses I bought for renovation and rental both got sent bills as soon as I became owner due to them previously being rental properties, one from Npower and one from British Gas demanding outstanding bill payment, I contacted them and refused but explaining why, was asked to send proof by way of financial documentation which I refused to do as it’s not their right to hold such info and was threatened with recovery procedures.
I just got my solicitor to send letters confirming sale and date and problem was solved with letters from both confirming such.
I can’t help but feel that any issues you have are self inflicted, as I said, do some reading up about your rights before launching into posting some of this stuff, yes you have a right to an opinion but i don’t don’t think you have the right to misinform in order to promote your agenda.
For anyone who’s digested Winseers rant and is now utterly paranoid about being a number and therefore ending up whittling spoons in a mud hut because normal society might want to know something about you if you want a mortgage etc, then speak to a solicitor or just have a scout around the internet and you will find all you need to know about data, your rights, others rights and how the regulations have been developed in recent years due to courts cases etc. Article 29 Working Party Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment on ‘Google Spain and inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González’ c-131/121 (WP 225 ) was I believe one such case that helped.
Of course if Winseer is telling the truth and actually following his own advice about not being a number or staying away from credit agencies etc then he wouldn’t have a house, a driving licence, a passport or the right to vote ( there’s irony ), he of course does have these so take from that what you will.
I take from it that the internet is a very good place for him to let off steam rather than the local high street armed with a sandwich board and a megaphone on a Saturday afternoon competing for airtime with “Special Brew Dave” and some fella sat on his coat with a recorder and a wolf on a rope.
What is political about being Anti Establishment - ALL establishment! In a perfect world, people that steal from me and attempt to ruin my life with impunity - should be locked up. If some actual real criminal imported from outside Europe can get the full protection of the law - then how come I struggle to get any protection from criminals as a PAYE taxpayer?
“Someone else’s debt meaning I couldn’t get a mortgage in 1994 when property was at a lifetime low, and affordable” has rendered me in a situation now where over the age of 50, I don’t own a property (unlike most of those I was at school with.) It is very easy to be in a postition where “no one gives a ■■■■” - because that is modern society. We are told to care about criminals these days, expecially foreign criminals - rather than look after our own hard-done-by that are in the placed they are at through no fault of their own.
However, I’ve seen the thin end of the wedge with regards to Internet Shared Data, and I’m satisfied that I’ve done all I can to cushion myself from the effects.
The time to throw such data abuses in their faces - is when they put ME in the dock to face charges relating to my private data - as they will be paying for the court’s time at that point.
One of the biggest loopholes one sees every day in the workplace are the way “Company Rules” get re-issued as “Legal Imperatives”.
Look at the “No Smoking” sign inside your cab for example… Does it say “It is against the law to smoke in this vehicle”. Is it really? Against the law - The actual law of the land? Is it F–!
…If you are later sacked because you are caught on camera smoking in the cab - then they can tell you "Take this dismissal on the chin, or we’ll prosectute for the more serious offence of “smoking in your cab”…? See what they’ve done there… Re-worded a simple rule for staff to follow - into a way of getting rid of staff with impunity that they wish to do, without severance pay, compensation, etc. A company might choose to ignore such a “no smoking” policy for years and years - until the person they want to get rid of does it - and then hey presto - instant dismissal, no comeback. “Office Politics” - How I hate it.
The vast majority of computer users these days - do not truly understand the technology and concepts they are using daily without second thought.
There’s not much point in trying to file lawsuits against people with bottomless pockets - but the best defence against such bodies - is to resist, deny, and sever oneself from the data mining machine that will forever making all “problems” about the User, and not about their flawed policies. Even people like Zuickerberg have fallen foul of the true dangers of using politically biased Think Tanks from harvesting people’s data to no good effect but to whom they eventually sell that data to…
I cannot stop companies that insist upon invading my privacy, getting back on topic here.
I DO expect to be able to “refuse to sign up for such policy” without the threat of sanction though.
No employee should ever be threatened with stuff like “This is our new policy - sign up to it, or you’re fired”. My contract is my contract. I’ll honour my side of it, and I expect my employer to uphold their side as well. If my firm wants to check up with DVLA about me - then they are very welcome, as it is totally relevant to my job there. If they want me to sign up to some outfit like Experion, with their Syphilis-like data sharing policies - then it isn’t relevant to me, as I don’t handle cash, am not going to divulge details of my bank account, and am not applying for credit. I am paid through my bank account of course, so I expect my employer to not divulge to third parties - my bank account details!
If any of you get a “phishing” type attack through the ordinary post - then my best advice is to “keep it as evidence”, but do not reply in any shape or form.
“We’re writing to you to explain that we intend to take £499.99 from your bank account on 15th of this month for the purchase at B&W you effected on the 5th of this month. If you dispute this transaction, pleae visit our website www.conmyarse.com, leaving your name, address, and bank account number that we need to refund the overcharged amount to.”
“Mis-used Data” is a tip of the iceberg problem that can only get worse, especially vs the “Computer Unwary”.
Be warned that the vast majority of “cons” going on out there - are totally legal, and they are not going to stop - because our flawed data abuse laws have been so badly written, that every criminal with a better knowledge of the technology they are using than you is, and will - take advantage.
It is Win/Can’t Lose for them. Even if you catch them red-handed, they don’t go to jail. If you end up losing out to such data abuse - then you don’t get that loss back either.
Rob K:
albion:
But anyway, the bicker started with you telling me I WILL be fitting them and me saying, nah.In that case you won’t be in business any longer as they are coming and they will eventually be mandatory for insurance.
…Not unless the insurance company provides the “Insurance Standard Model” for everyone to install!
Rob K wrote:
albion wrote:
But anyway, the bicker started with you telling me I WILL be fitting them and me saying, nah.
In that case you won’t be in business any longer as they are coming and they will eventually be mandatory for insurance.
So is driverless trucks,so you won’t need cameras,or drivers ,then what will you all talk about,the good old days 
malcolmgbell:
Rob K wrote:
albion wrote:
But anyway, the bicker started with you telling me I WILL be fitting them and me saying, nah.In that case you won’t be in business any longer as they are coming and they will eventually be mandatory for insurance.
So is driverless trucks,so you won’t need cameras,or drivers ,then what will you all talk about,the good old days
With a newspeak vocabulary 1/8th the size of what’s available now, not very much. (If you’ve read Orwell’s 1984, you’ll catch what I mean).
Like the tachograph and speed limiter, in cab cameras will soon be fitted by the manufacturers on the production line.
Do I like the idea? No not at all, but think about it, what do you have to worry about? In a modern lorry you can do everything but pick your nose from the steering wheel controls, with smart phones and their voice activated features you can even read/send text messages. It’s not illegal to have a swig of coffee as you drive, it’s not illegal to eat a sarnie, or pick your nose, so really there’s nothing to fear from having one. So there is no reason an in cab camera will see anything that could condemn you, unless you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
Like the tachograph and speed limiter, in cab cameras will soon be fitted by the manufacturers on the production line.Do I like the idea? No not at all, but think about it, what do you have to worry about? In a modern lorry you can do everything but pick your nose from the steering wheel controls, with smart phones and their voice activated features you can even read/send text messages. It’s not illegal to have a swig of coffee as you drive, it’s not illegal to eat a sarnie, or pick your nose, so really there’s nothing to fear from having one. So there is no reason an in cab camera will see anything that could condemn you, unless you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
I can’t find a face palm gif large enough for this! How many times do the “if you’re doing nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to fear” brigade need their naivety highlighting?
There’s about 100 things I could pick from your post, and I shall pick one. Eating a sarnie whilst driving is not illegal, as you say, but can be classed as driving without due care and attention. Have you never seen the news articles of people being fined for taking a bite of an apple in stationary traffic? It doesn’t take a genius to understand how a driver caught on camera biting into his cheese and pickle bap could end up sacked by a manger who has it in for said driver. There is lots to fear, especially as such intimate surveillance becomes normalised this way. A critical mind would naturally ask: what next? And one answer could be that DVSA want access to all camera facing footage - a bit like the FORS tacho data scheme. Would you want that?
newmercman:
Like the tachograph and speed limiter, in cab cameras will soon be fitted by the manufacturers on the production line.Do I like the idea? No not at all, but think about it, what do you have to worry about? In a modern lorry you can do everything but pick your nose from the steering wheel controls, with smart phones and their voice activated features you can even read/send text messages. It’s not illegal to have a swig of coffee as you drive, it’s not illegal to eat a sarnie, or pick your nose, so really there’s nothing to fear from having one. So there is no reason an in cab camera will see anything that could condemn you, unless you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
You were one of the last people I expected to see that horse ■■■■ from! Looks like “The Establishment” has already got to you. RIP.
Indeed a mate of mine was sacked from his small fry supermarket but with billy big ■■■■■■■■ ideas about who they are 
after they saw driver facing footage of him eating an apple.
I’ll have no problem with the driver facing camera when every single other employee, forkies packers admin clerks cleaners yardies and yes including the board and directors and everyone who works for the insurer (who apparently demand this ■■■■■■■■), have personal cameras watching and listening to their every working hour, and another one in their company issue cars, all subject to the same security measures for video viewing, after all if you do nothing wrong etc 
newmercman:
Like the tachograph and speed limiter, in cab cameras will soon be fitted by the manufacturers on the production line.Do I like the idea? No not at all, but think about it, what do you have to worry about? In a modern lorry you can do everything but pick your nose from the steering wheel controls, with smart phones and their voice activated features you can even read/send text messages. It’s not illegal to have a swig of coffee as you drive, it’s not illegal to eat a sarnie, or pick your nose, so really there’s nothing to fear from having one. So there is no reason an in cab camera will see anything that could condemn you, unless you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sorry bud but in the uk its illegal to eat,drink,smoke listen to loud music or do any of the myriad of tasks whilst driving as you would not be in proper control and would face a fine and 3 points assuming you come to the attention of your average plank of a cop.
i think its complete ■■■■■■■■ and ive no issues doing numerous tasks whilst driving,but its deffo illegal.
ezydriver:
newmercman:
Like the tachograph and speed limiter, in cab cameras will soon be fitted by the manufacturers on the production line.Do I like the idea? No not at all, but think about it, what do you have to worry about? In a modern lorry you can do everything but pick your nose from the steering wheel controls, with smart phones and their voice activated features you can even read/send text messages. It’s not illegal to have a swig of coffee as you drive, it’s not illegal to eat a sarnie, or pick your nose, so really there’s nothing to fear from having one. So there is no reason an in cab camera will see anything that could condemn you, unless you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
I can’t find a face palm gif large enough for this! How many times do the “if you’re doing nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to fear” brigade need their naivety highlighting?
There’s about 100 things I could pick from your post, and I shall pick one. Eating a sarnie whilst driving is not illegal, as you say, but can be classed as driving without due care and attention. Have you never seen the news articles of people being fined for taking a bite of an apple in stationary traffic? It doesn’t take a genius to understand how a driver caught on camera biting into his cheese and pickle bap could end up sacked by a manger who has it in for said driver. There is lots to fear, especially as such intimate surveillance becomes normalised this way. A critical mind would naturally ask: what next? And one answer could be that DVSA want access to all camera facing footage - a bit like the FORS tacho data scheme. Would you want that?
I did say I didn’t like the idea at all, but as I also said, it won’t be long before they’re fitted as an option from the factory and not going for the option would leave a company wide open to the assumption that it was trying to hide something, so as a lorry driver, you’re going to have one in the future, you can be principled about it, but in today’s world of PC and H&S ■■■■■■■■, you’ll just be putting yourself out of a job.
There’s no defence against having one because of the “if you’ve nothing to hide…” thing, so what can you do about it? Nothing. In which case you’re going to have to lump it. As I said, you can use technology to work in your favour and carry on doing all the stuff you do now, even sending text messages or emails.
What else can you do that isn’t illegal that you don’t want anyone to see? Unless you’re rubbing one out driving down the road, it’s not really an invasion of your privacy is it? If you worked in a factory, office, shop or warehouse your bosses could see what you were doing by glancing in your direction, there’s no difference.
As I understand it, in cab cameras are on a loop and only save a recording of the moments leading up to and following a crash, it won’t be a Truman Show, there’s no live feed back to the office.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk