In cab camera's

[robroy]

Rottweiler22:
My old firm had them at every other base except ours. It would have only been a matter of time before our depot got them. Allegedly only two “compliance managers” have access to the footage, which was only available in retrospect. They had to physically download the footage from the truck after an incident (they claimed). They were unable to watch a live stream (they claimed). Our driver trainer even admitted that he knew very little about what the cameras were capable of, but from his research he knew the cameras were capable of providing a live stream.

What irritated was that any old “compliance manager” could look at the footage of an incident, and be as subjective as they liked. The driver being slumped over the wheel could point to fatigue, or poor driving style. Being too reclined could point to fatigue and lack of awareness. The driver being upright and alert could point to the driver “looking unsure of himself”. Can you see where I’m going? Pretty much any type of body language could be construed as being negative and the potential cause of an incident. Yawning, taking a sip of coffee, or unwrapping a humbug could be construed as a “catalyst” of an incident.

These managerial types love to play the “safety” card. “It’s for your own safety”, that sort of thing… As if safety justifies every over-zealous decision they make. I say throw it right back at them. Park up early, or take longer and more frequent breaks. When the management kick-off, just reply; “I feel tired. Should there be an incident, and the camera footage identifies me as being tired prior to it, I could lose my job, livelihood, and possibly face criminal proceedings. I am simply acting in the interest of the safety of myself and others”. I’d love to see them get out of that one.

At my old, old job I delivered at a place where the girls in the transport office were giggling at a particular driver because he liked listening to children’s audiobooks whilst driving (Harry Potter, that sort of thing…). They were just watching and listening to his dashcam footage, laughing at him. He had no knowledge at all they were doing this.

The name ‘‘Compliance Manager’’ is the answer to your point.
It’s yet another non job dreamt up by the modern management style, he’s carrying out that non job with enthusiasm to justify his own existence.
They would be better off getti g rid of these parasitic type wonkers and sharing out their wages among the drivers.

[robroy]

the nodding donkey:
I’m kind of in the middle here. I can understand why the bosses, or the insurance, or for what it’s worth, Joe public, wants these cameras. Everytime a truck goes into the back of a stationary vehicle, at full tilt, it’s a driver on his phone. Tired drivers are more dangerous than drink drivers. Drivers drinking whilst driving.

I’m also old school. I grew up, and learned my graft, when rolling a ■■■, with your feet on the dash, and a CB Mike in your hand, was a rite of passage. I have boiled a kettle, made my tea, whilst going down the motorway. I have delivered in London, with my A5 sized road atlas across the wheel, trying to make sense of the one way systems…Whilst rolling a ■■■…

Times change. Cameras are inevitable. People working in a shop are watched. People in a bank are watched. People walking the street are watched. A camera whilst your driving should not be a problem. When you stop, simply cover it. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll accept the camera watching me drive (and sign badly and loudly), I won’t accept that camera watching me once I stop driving
And that is what I’ll tell my boss.

C’mon ND don’t you be falling into their trap of just accepting injustices just because ‘‘Times change’’ leave that to the new, the inexperienced, and the eunuchs amongst us, this is exactly what they want, drip feed you with crap and ■■■■■■■■ to make you eventually believe it and comply.
Quite surprised at that statement coming from you tbh.mate

[juddian]

Good staff don’t need to be watched in some surreal version of 1984, idiots maybe do, but good drivers should object to being lumped in lowest common denominator style with the also rans.

Good drivers didn’t tell the company to employ half wits, that’s management’s decision and they should deal with the consequences of their decisions without further dumbing the job down, if they offered proper terms and conditions and treated their staff with respect they wouldn’t need to grab any bod with a driving certificate that can manage to hobble through the gate, they could cherry pick from the vast pool of proper lorry drivers and everyone would be better off.

[captain_caveman_76]

Juddian:
Good staff don’t need to be watched in some surreal version of 1984, idiots maybe do, but good drivers should object to being lumped in lowest common denominator style with the also rans.

Good drivers didn’t tell the company to employ half wits, that’s management’s decision and they should deal with the consequences of their decisions without further dumbing the job down, if they offered proper terms and conditions and treated their staff with respect they wouldn’t need to grab any bod with a driving certificate that can manage to hobble through the gate, they could cherry pick from the vast pool of proper lorry drivers and everyone would be better off.

Spot on

[the_nodding_donkey]

robroy:

the nodding donkey:
I’m kind of in the middle here. I can understand why the bosses, or the insurance, or for what it’s worth, Joe public, wants these cameras. Everytime a truck goes into the back of a stationary vehicle, at full tilt, it’s a driver on his phone. Tired drivers are more dangerous than drink drivers. Drivers drinking whilst driving.

I’m also old school. I grew up, and learned my graft, when rolling a ■■■, with your feet on the dash, and a CB Mike in your hand, was a rite of passage. I have boiled a kettle, made my tea, whilst going down the motorway. I have delivered in London, with my A5 sized road atlas across the wheel, trying to make sense of the one way systems…Whilst rolling a ■■■…

Times change. Cameras are inevitable. People working in a shop are watched. People in a bank are watched. People walking the street are watched. A camera whilst your driving should not be a problem. When you stop, simply cover it. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll accept the camera watching me drive (and sign badly and loudly), I won’t accept that camera watching me once I stop driving
And that is what I’ll tell my boss.

C’mon ND don’t you be falling into their trap of just accepting injustices just because ‘‘Times change’’ leave that to the new, the inexperienced, and the eunuchs amongst us, this is exactly what they want, drip feed you with crap and ■■■■■■■■ to make you eventually believe it and comply.
Quite surprised at that statement coming from you tbh.mate

Rob, I’m not falling into any trap. I’m sure that drivers were incensed when the first logbook was introduced, and you should know first hand what the reaction was when the ‘spy in the cab’ was introduced. Wearing a seat belt wad akin to being made to drive in a dress, and for those here old enough to remember when motorcycles leaked oil and were made in England, to be made to wear a helmet was like having your gender questioned…

I don’t like the idea of being watched at work anymore than you do. But it’s how we respond to them that counts. Just like we all accept the tacho (with or without wires, magnets, or electronic gizmos), and had to accept the driver cpc crap.
Sure, you, and Juddian, are big guys, who can and will stand up for themselves, and may even walk when their company installs these cameras (quite possibly against their companies on wish…), but eventually, if this becomes either an insurance standard or law, you’ll have to either accept, or find another career.
Drivers threatened to walk when log books were introduced, when tacho were introduced, when the DCPC was introduced…

Like it or not, the days of hardy men traveling through the desert to Iran, or across Britain or Europe as a mythical band of brothers, changing each others wheels and folding each others tarpaulins (down Dipper, down), are over. So are rickets.

[robroy]

the nodding donkey:

robroy:

the nodding donkey:
I’m kind of in the middle here. I can understand why the bosses, or the insurance, or for what it’s worth, Joe public, wants these cameras. Everytime a truck goes into the back of a stationary vehicle, at full tilt, it’s a driver on his phone. Tired drivers are more dangerous than drink drivers. Drivers drinking whilst driving.

I’m also old school. I grew up, and learned my graft, when rolling a ■■■, with your feet on the dash, and a CB Mike in your hand, was a rite of passage. I have boiled a kettle, made my tea, whilst going down the motorway. I have delivered in London, with my A5 sized road atlas across the wheel, trying to make sense of the one way systems…Whilst rolling a ■■■…

Times change. Cameras are inevitable. People working in a shop are watched. People in a bank are watched. People walking the street are watched. A camera whilst your driving should not be a problem. When you stop, simply cover it. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll accept the camera watching me drive (and sign badly and loudly), I won’t accept that camera watching me once I stop driving
And that is what I’ll tell my boss.

C’mon ND don’t you be falling into their trap of just accepting injustices just because ‘‘Times change’’ leave that to the new, the inexperienced, and the eunuchs amongst us, this is exactly what they want, drip feed you with crap and ■■■■■■■■ to make you eventually believe it and comply.
Quite surprised at that statement coming from you tbh.mate

Rob, I’m not falling into any trap. I’m sure that drivers were incensed when the first logbook was introduced, and you should know first hand what the reaction was when the ‘spy in the cab’ was introduced. Wearing a seat belt wad akin to being made to drive in a dress, and for those here old enough to remember when motorcycles leaked oil and were made in England, to be made to wear a helmet was like having your gender questioned…

I don’t like the idea of being watched at work anymore than you do. But it’s how we respond to them that counts. Just like we all accept the tacho (with or without wires, magnets, or electronic gizmos), and had to accept the driver cpc crap.
Sure, you, and Juddian, are big guys, who can and will stand up for themselves, and may even walk when their company installs these cameras (quite possibly against their companies on wish…), but eventually, if this becomes either an insurance standard or law, you’ll have to either accept, or find another career.
Drivers threatened to walk when log books were introduced, when tacho were introduced, when the DCPC was introduced…

Like it or not, the days of hardy men traveling through the desert to Iran, or across Britain or Europe as a mythical band of brothers, changing each others wheels and folding each others tarpaulins (down Dipper, down), are over. So are rickets.

I agree there has been a decline in freedom since the log book days and all aspects thereafter in the job designed to demoralise and ■■■■ us off.
But how far do you go, how much more of this crap do you just roll over for and readily accept.
I reckon we are at the epitome of ■■■■ takes with these constant watch cameras, it is just one step off whst I said before, the lubricated gloved finger up the arse hole each Monday morning.
You mention me, we already have the event only type cameras facing both ways, me and a couple of others were extremely vocal about it, the rest…kecks down and bend over, so I’m stuck with it, but I have it covered up, mostly because I strongly disagree but partly I can not concentrate on my driving thinking some little Roger Hunt in an office somewhere is ogling me.
A firm I know in the N.East also had these cameras fitted, the drivers got together and told the firm unless they were out by Monday no tricks would leave the yard.
The cameras were converted to out facing only.

[truckman020]

robroy:
Apparentlly they are activated all the time, but only record in an event ie harsh braking, collision, sudden stop, they record 7 secs before and 7 secs after the event.
We had them fitted, but only about 3 of us kicked off about them, and true to form the rest just accepted them .
So being that we who had the balls to speak up were in the minority they were imposed on us.
I’ve no probs with the out facing, but the inward facing one is tactically covered…[zb] them.
We are assured that they can not instantly watch you randomly, and I’ve checked that with the manufactureres on tinternet.

We will get the usual subservient pathetic souls on here saying ‘‘Well if you’re doing nothing wrong’’ etc etc, , but you can guarantee as sure as hell that for every once they clear you, there will be 5 times that they implicate you, so as I said mine is covered for that reason.

this is the reason for the post as my colleagues have them fitted in the 17 plate motors,they had a letter from the managing director stating that the cameras are being covered up and that the practise of doing so must stop citing the usual about them being there for everyones safety,it’s an insurance demand and so on,at the mo i’m lucky not to have one but apparently i’m next on the list

[captain_caveman_76]

truckman020:

robroy:
Apparentlly they are activated all the time, but only record in an event ie harsh braking, collision, sudden stop, they record 7 secs before and 7 secs after the event.
We had them fitted, but only about 3 of us kicked off about them, and true to form the rest just accepted them .
So being that we who had the balls to speak up were in the minority they were imposed on us.
I’ve no probs with the out facing, but the inward facing one is tactically covered…[zb] them.
We are assured that they can not instantly watch you randomly, and I’ve checked that with the manufactureres on tinternet.

We will get the usual subservient pathetic souls on here saying ‘‘Well if you’re doing nothing wrong’’ etc etc, , but you can guarantee as sure as hell that for every once they clear you, there will be 5 times that they implicate you, so as I said mine is covered for that reason.

this is the reason for the post as my colleagues have them fitted in the 17 plate motors,they had a letter from the managing director stating that the cameras are being covered up and that the practise of doing so must stop citing the usual about them being there for everyones safety,it’s an insurance demand and so on,at the mo i’m lucky not to have one but apparently i’m next on the list

But if the cameras are only viewed in the event of an “incident”, how do they know they’ve been covered up?

[kcrussell25]

Captain Caveman 76:

truckman020:

robroy:
Apparentlly they are activated all the time, but only record in an event ie harsh braking, collision, sudden stop, they record 7 secs before and 7 secs after the event.
We had them fitted, but only about 3 of us kicked off about them, and true to form the rest just accepted them .
So being that we who had the balls to speak up were in the minority they were imposed on us.
I’ve no probs with the out facing, but the inward facing one is tactically covered…[zb] them.
We are assured that they can not instantly watch you randomly, and I’ve checked that with the manufactureres on tinternet.

We will get the usual subservient pathetic souls on here saying ‘‘Well if you’re doing nothing wrong’’ etc etc, , but you can guarantee as sure as hell that for every once they clear you, there will be 5 times that they implicate you, so as I said mine is covered for that reason.

this is the reason for the post as my colleagues have them fitted in the 17 plate motors,they had a letter from the managing director stating that the cameras are being covered up and that the practise of doing so must stop citing the usual about them being there for everyones safety,it’s an insurance demand and so on,at the mo i’m lucky not to have one but apparently i’m next on the list

But if the cameras are only viewed in the event of an “incident”, how do they know they’ve been covered up?

Harsh braking or hitting a speed bump hard enough set them off

If reviewed then and see them covered there you go.

If you want to ruffle feathers ask for a copy of the company’s data protection policy. Circumstances and people authorised to view them.

There are a lot of rules around cctv and failure to follow them can lead to prosecution and big fines

[captain_caveman_76]

kcrussell25:
If you want to ruffle feathers ask for a copy of the company’s data protection policy. Circumstances and people authorised to view them.

There are a lot of rules around cctv and failure to follow them can lead to prosecution and big fines

That’s one I’ll keep in reserve.

[ezydriver]

Captain Caveman 76:

truckman020:

robroy:
Apparentlly they are activated all the time, but only record in an event ie harsh braking, collision, sudden stop, they record 7 secs before and 7 secs after the event.
We had them fitted, but only about 3 of us kicked off about them, and true to form the rest just accepted them .
So being that we who had the balls to speak up were in the minority they were imposed on us.
I’ve no probs with the out facing, but the inward facing one is tactically covered…[zb] them.
We are assured that they can not instantly watch you randomly, and I’ve checked that with the manufactureres on tinternet.

We will get the usual subservient pathetic souls on here saying ‘‘Well if you’re doing nothing wrong’’ etc etc, , but you can guarantee as sure as hell that for every once they clear you, there will be 5 times that they implicate you, so as I said mine is covered for that reason.

this is the reason for the post as my colleagues have them fitted in the 17 plate motors,they had a letter from the managing director stating that the cameras are being covered up and that the practise of doing so must stop citing the usual about them being there for everyones safety,it’s an insurance demand and so on,at the mo i’m lucky not to have one but apparently i’m next on the list

But if the cameras are only viewed in the event of an “incident”, how do they know they’ve been covered up?

Exactly. I made a point of going in to see my manager to ask about these cameras. He assured me they’re only there in case of an incident, and are not remotely viewable. Two weeks ago I witnessed the same manager walking towards a colleague’s motor as he began his shift saying “I’ve got to check your camera, I’m sure it’s been covered up”… which it had.

[ezydriver]

EDIT: oops, duplicate post… please delete.

[rottweiler22]

It’s always puzzled me when they say these cameras are for insurance purposes. Maybe someone with more experience in insurance could enlighten me?

Is it simply a case of an insurance premium being lower on the condition that driver-facing cameras are fitted to all vehicles? For example, an annual insurance quote without cameras is £300,000, but with driver-facing cameras fitted, £250,000?

Or do they somehow reduce insurance costs down the line? For example, there’s a smash, and a member of the public tries to claim against the haulage company. The insurance company checks the footage, and finds the lorry driver did nothing wrong. Claim dismissed, and a costly payout by the haulage company is averted. Success for the cameras!

But on the other hand, if there’s a smash, and the footage reveals that the driver is fully responsible (like the aforementioned Tomasz Kroker incident on the A34 where a mother and three kids were killed), what benefits does it bring for the haulage company? Is it just a case of the haulier distancing themselves from the culprit driver and saying; “His actions went against our company policy, which subsequently caused a collision, and he has been investigated, sacked, and the footage passed onto the relevant authorities. We’ve done our bit, it wasn’t our haulage company’s fault, it was the individual driver’s, we’re not responsible!” Is that the point of it? Just passing the blame onto the driver, not the company as a whole?

Or are they there to “frighten” a driver into non-thinking compliance? It goes without saying that any decent driver would never roll a ■■■, or be on the phone. No doubt the mediocre ones wouldn’t dare be texting on their phones if the camera footage could, however remote the possibility, be used against them. I remember Corcra, one of the sickly firms inevitably making a fortune from this sort of technology advertising their driver-facing cameras as “having a positive effect on driver behaviour”. In other words, scaring the driver into compliance.

Lastly, could they just be some pet project of an overpaid, underworked “compliance manager”? I imagine checking camera footage is a lot more interesting than looking at Excel spreadsheets, or trying to think of innovative ways to prevent driver deaths caused by biscuits. They have the chance to sit at a desk, and play judge, jury and executioner. If anyone argues, just say they’re for “safety”. Nobody can possibly argue against “safety”. A bit of authority to go at, possibly some humorous or exciting footage, yeah, why not, get them installed!

“Insurance” is a horrible word. It just oozes boredom and bureaucracy. Many think of it as a necessary evil, and something that must be just taken as such. Nobody bothers arguing when somebody tells them that something is for “insurance purposes”. It’s like the “it’s just the way things are” brigade. I’m pretty sure that a firm could implement the old daily lubricated finger inspection, and when a driver questions why, the fingerer could just quote “for insurance”. I bet you’d be surprised how many would just, shrug, sigh, and bend over.

[nightline]

Rottweiler22:
My old firm had them at every other base except ours. It would have only been a matter of time before our depot got them. Allegedly only two “compliance managers” have access to the footage, which was only available in retrospect. They had to physically download the footage from the truck after an incident (they claimed). They were unable to watch a live stream (they claimed). Our driver trainer even admitted that he knew very little about what the cameras were capable of, but from his research he knew the cameras were capable of providing a live stream.

What irritated was that any old “compliance manager” could look at the footage of an incident, and be as subjective as they liked. The driver being slumped over the wheel could point to fatigue, or poor driving style. Being too reclined could point to fatigue and lack of awareness. The driver being upright and alert could point to the driver “looking unsure of himself”. Can you see where I’m going? Pretty much any type of body language could be construed as being negative and the potential cause of an incident. Yawning, taking a sip of coffee, or unwrapping a humbug could be construed as a “catalyst” of an incident.

These managerial types love to play the “safety” card. “It’s for your own safety”, that sort of thing… As if safety justifies every over-zealous decision they make. I say throw it right back at them. Park up early, or take longer and more frequent breaks. When the management kick-off, just reply; “I feel tired. Should there be an incident, and the camera footage identifies me as being tired prior to it, I could lose my job, livelihood, and possibly face criminal proceedings. I am simply acting in the interest of the safety of myself and others”. I’d love to see them get out of that one.

At my old, old job I delivered at a place where the girls in the transport office were giggling at a particular driver because he liked listening to children’s audiobooks whilst driving (Harry Potter, that sort of thing…). They were just watching and listening to his dashcam footage, laughing at him. He had no knowledge at all they were doing this.

Great post

[gasgas]

There’s some forthcoming data protection legislation that will curtail the use of these cameras.

I’ll try to flog the story to a magazine, then link to it here!

[caledoniandream]

I think it’s funny that people complain about being watched use internet, mobile phones, use bank cards, drive in Britain, walk in Britain or even live in Britain.
You are tracked multiple times a day, much more than you think, you don’t have half a clue what the government, their agencies, banks, telephone operators etc know about you, or can track about you.
Are you sure your camara on your device doesn’t record you?
You are not listened too while your phone is in your pocket, your not tracked while you drive, walk or have a dump?
If you want privacy you will need to disappear to some for lorn country and pay by cash, never use a bank or go into a shop.
I think a monitoring camara is the least of your problems.

And people who say they should have cctv in the office , you actually will find out that most offices have cctv.
It has come with the modern times, we want to now what goes on in the world and the world wants to know what you are doing.
You can fight it, but don’t waste your energy.
By the way, the most Unionized workplace (railway and docks) are full of cctv even more than anywhere else.
So even Unions cannot stop it.

[truckman020]

onesock:
all planners should have a cam on their desk and all calls and actions should be recorded. Of course they should clock in and out every day. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that goes for fat cat bosses too. I really wonder why anyone is bothering to drive trucks anymore. Drivers are easy meat for the old bill, the ministry, h&s, members of the public and many more. Why do drivers bother their arses with such a crap job ?

agree with you,unfortunately it’s all I know,too old to re train

[truckman020]

eagerbeaver:

onesock:
all planners should have a cam on their desk and all calls and actions should be recorded. Of course they should clock in and out every day. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that goes for fat cat bosses too. I really wonder why anyone is bothering to drive trucks anymore. Drivers are easy meat for the old bill, the ministry, h&s, members of the public and many more. Why do drivers bother their arses with such a crap job ?

Because we didn’t listen at school.

so true,trouble is I knew I wanted to drive hgvs since I was around six and going out with my dad in them,so I didn’t bother to learn at school,now I regret it,biggest mistake of my life,having said that it could be worse,i could have worked in an office,who the heck would want that.

[truckman020]

the nodding donkey:

robroy:

the nodding donkey:
I’m kind of in the middle here. I can understand why the bosses, or the insurance, or for what it’s worth, Joe public, wants these cameras. Everytime a truck goes into the back of a stationary vehicle, at full tilt, it’s a driver on his phone. Tired drivers are more dangerous than drink drivers. Drivers drinking whilst driving.

I’m also old school. I grew up, and learned my graft, when rolling a ■■■, with your feet on the dash, and a CB Mike in your hand, was a rite of passage. I have boiled a kettle, made my tea, whilst going down the motorway. I have delivered in London, with my A5 sized road atlas across the wheel, trying to make sense of the one way systems…Whilst rolling a ■■■…

Times change. Cameras are inevitable. People working in a shop are watched. People in a bank are watched. People walking the street are watched. A camera whilst your driving should not be a problem. When you stop, simply cover it. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll accept the camera watching me drive (and sign badly and loudly), I won’t accept that camera watching me once I stop driving
And that is what I’ll tell my boss.

C’mon ND don’t you be falling into their trap of just accepting injustices just because ‘‘Times change’’ leave that to the new, the inexperienced, and the eunuchs amongst us, this is exactly what they want, drip feed you with crap and ■■■■■■■■ to make you eventually believe it and comply.
Quite surprised at that statement coming from you tbh.mate

Rob, I’m not falling into any trap. I’m sure that drivers were incensed when the first logbook was introduced, and you should know first hand what the reaction was when the ‘spy in the cab’ was introduced. Wearing a seat belt wad akin to being made to drive in a dress, and for those here old enough to remember when motorcycles leaked oil and were made in England, to be made to wear a helmet was like having your gender questioned…

I don’t like the idea of being watched at work anymore than you do. But it’s how we respond to them that counts. Just like we all accept the tacho (with or without wires, magnets, or electronic gizmos), and had to accept the driver cpc crap.
Sure, you, and Juddian, are big guys, who can and will stand up for themselves, and may even walk when their company installs these cameras (quite possibly against their companies on wish…), but eventually, if this becomes either an insurance standard or law, you’ll have to either accept, or find another career.
Drivers threatened to walk when log books were introduced, when tacho were introduced, when the DCPC was introduced…

Like it or not, the days of hardy men traveling through the desert to Iran, or across Britain or Europe as a mythical band of brothers, changing each others wheels and folding each others tarpaulins (down Dipper, down), are over. So are rickets.

if drivers on our company threatened to walk it would not bother them[employers] at all,they would just use agency

[sidevalve]

robroy:
Hate to say it after all the anti Union stuff on here lately, but I will anyway.
If drivers had a proper and powerful union (eg the Railway) this is a classic example of the ■■■■■■■■ that drivers would not have to endure.
It would never have got off the ground …just saying like.

I hold no brief for ASLEF or indeed any other rail union; but I have to say that it would be nice if truck manufacturers had to observe similar consideration for drivers’ comfort and welfare compared to train builders…

http://www.aslef.org.uk/visageimages/Publications/General/asleftraincabdesignhandbook.pdf

Incidentally, I think you may find that many modern trains have driver observation cameras built into them, which specifically monitor eyelid movement. The technology’s been around for years.