I've had camaras installed in the cab of my lorry facing me

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
121

kcrussell25:
Either I am not making it clear or your not getting my point.

Why point a camera at someone sat at a desk. Whats the worst they can do? Spill a cup of coffee on their comeputer?

What if you want to have a record of who they are meeting with, or see what they are doing with the computer, or indeed what they are not doing?

Would the BHS pensioners be more secure if Philip Green’s affairs had been watched more closely? Surveillance must take the form that is appropriate to the risk, it is rarely concerned with the physical scrutiny of the person (even in the case of drivers), but about what they are up to (which in the case of bosses is more likely to need to take the form of monitoring communications than monitoring physical activities).

I don’t think they will be worried about a driver yawning on his 5th shift but they will be worried about him playing on his phone as he drives straight into the back of stationary traffic. If your job works to many/wrong hours have you looked for something else? If you are so tired that you feel unfit to drive you need to stop and take a break. If it is just the general yawning at the end of the day that won’t be an issue as everyone does that. I don’t know if there is a medical reason for the diet coke but as a night worker I find the full sugar version more helpful in providing a ‘lift’ compared to sugar free drinks.

I get your point about planes etc but specifically planes they have the voice and data recorders already. Also they have a second person in there looking at you and a strong culture of reporting problems or safety issues. Regards trains, taxies etc even planes how many people are killed in plane/train crashes etc due to driver or pilot error as apposed to technical problems? Planes especially it is very rare. Compare that to how many killed or how many bridges are hit by lorry drivers not paying attention?

Unfortunately driving has got to the standard where things like this are needed. That may not be due to you personally but it is the way the industry like so many others has gone. As has been commented else where is it worth saving a bit on wages if they will destroy the trucks worth a 100k? At the time employers thought yes. I wonder if they still do?

I personally wouldn’t object to cameras per se, when the engine is running (obviously there are times when the space becomes private when the engine is not running). The real issue is that bosses won’t accept the same scrutiny of their roles, and what they are up to.

Being recorded could be a useful thing if, for example, it captured you reporting a defect which the boss then refuses to fix. The real issue we all have is not with privacy per se, but with the selection of what is recorded and what is not, and who decides, and which reasons justify access to the records and by whom.

122

robroy:
It has [zb] all to do with H&S, clearing the driver in an accident situation or any other positive spin these management dicks try to put forward to you so you will bend over
It is there as a modern style 1984 style man management technique, for them to encroach on your privacy and to catch you out in some way…end of.

Measures which protect a worker’s health and safety are not the problem, any more so than data protection or insurance policies are. The problem is who decides how these things are interpreted and implemented, and how they are balanced against other demands.

If the bosses alone decide what health and safety is, they will simply decide that everything they want is justified by H&S, and everything they don’t want is not justified by it.

What people are facing up to today is not an excess of measures which protect ordinary people from harm, but an excess of power that the bosses have to decide what those harms are and what the measures against them will be.

When bosses justify themselves on H&S, what stings is not that we have a system that requires employers to protect your H&S, but that they alone frequently get to decide what that concept actually is and how it is implemented. Would you be so frustrated if you got to decide?

123

Rjan:
Measures which protect a worker’s health and safety are not the problem, any more so than data protection or insurance policies are. The problem is who decides how these things are interpreted and implemented, and how they are balanced against other demands.

If the bosses alone decide what health and safety is, they will simply decide that everything they want is justified by H&S, and everything they don’t want is not justified by it.

What people are facing up to today is not an excess of measures which protect ordinary people from harm, but an excess of power that the bosses have to decide what those harms are and what the measures against them will be.

When bosses justify themselves on H&S, what stings is not that we have a system that requires employers to protect your H&S, but that they alone frequently get to decide what that concept actually is and how it is implemented. Would you be so frustrated if you got to decide?

I think youre getting the balance about right here. If the driver has access to a copy of his recordings, so he/she can save or review them in case of a dispute over competence, phone calls, made, received or not etc, then there may be a case for some level of in cab monitoring. Thus the recordings could be used to defend the driver against unjust complaints etc. Others given access to images should be on a limited basis, with the circumstances clearly defined before hand. The subject of recordings should be able to tell if their image has been viewed, by whom, and be able to query why. Im sure busy office bods have more to do with their time than watch the nose picking hand shuffling antics of drivers, and wouldnt waste time viewing all that footage randomly. After all if theyve nothing to hide they couldnt possibly object to us checking up on them could they?

124

Franglais:
After all if theyve nothing to hide they couldnt possibly object to us checking up on them could they?`

Indeed, and in my experience the last thing a manager is going to let you do is read his emails or listen to recordings of his meetings, because he has everything to hide.

Once you recognise it as an inequality of privacy, in which one side demands privacy for themselves but is able to monitor the other freely, without the other side having any say in the matter, that is the problem.

People claim to have nothing to hide, but in fact usually in a conflict with management they do have something to hide, or management may make it into something that you would want to remain hidden. For example, you may misjudge a red light very infrequently. And generally, management do not care about this.

When management control access to everybody’s recordings, if they decide for other reasons they do not like you, then all they do is trawl through your recordings for the past year and find something they can call illegal, and sack you for it. Now, something you were never hiding, becomes something to hide.

Because you do not have access to the recordings of others (and because management will justify this on data protection grounds), it becomes impossible to prove that you’re being victimised, or at the very least you have to watch a hundred, even a thousand times more footage to prove that you’re no more unreliable as any other driver.

Even if you beat them, they will have caused much more harassment to you than you cause to them, and they will have intimidated your colleagues much more than you’ve intimidated the bosses, and often you will simply not beat them, because they begin with the power to monitor all your work, whereas you do not have the power to monitor theirs.

As I said, people who say they have “nothing to hide” are either truly supplicants who have no imagination, or they misunderstand the nature of the objection about privacy.

If you characterise the bosses as stalkers (who may or may not be benevolent, we cannot tell), people intuitively recognise that being watched is an uncomfortable situation, not because you’re doing anything wrong at all, but because it brings home that an inequality and a vulnerability arises when a stalker can watch your every move, but you cannot watch his.

125

The firm I work for has them in their newer vehicles, and I’m at their main depot ask I speak. Every truck newer than 12-plate has them, and I really can’t believe how many trucks here have driver-facing cameras.

I honestly can’t understand why people haven’t taken more of a stand against them, it’s either like nobody cares, or they’re just accepting them as part and parcel of the job. The majority of the drivers here are old fellows, or Eastern European. I imagine the older generation just think; “Sod it, grin and bear it for a couple of years, then I get my pension…”, and the Eastern Europeans are that chuffed about earning here in a day what they would in a week back home, they don’t give a toss about the camera pointed at them either.

The haulage industry will be a grim place indeed if these horrible things become commonplace, which I imagine they will do. Tachos, trackers, telematics, CPC, dashcams and now inward-facing CCTV. I hope they get a real shortage of people wanting to do the job, where they start seeing genuine problems with supply chains; empty shelves, empty fuel pumps, the lot. Camera-ridden trucks sat in yards because nobody is willing to get in one for £9.50 an hour, and chinless managers scratching their heads wondering why. The whole industry is knackered!

126

It’s an interesting debate. I’ll add my 2 pence.

I work in a management position now, I have been a driver for many years, and of course, in that capacity, I was dead against the intrusion of privacy that they appeared to be in my own head, from my very limited perspective at the time. On a fleet of any size, as a driver, we really don’t see the bigger picture. It has honestly been really interesting having the opportunity to see things from both sides. I hope it makes me better at my job now.

I have direct responsibility for all our fleet cameras, getting people to stop interfering with them, blocking them, sabotaging them etc is a constant problem, and a very expensive one. Cameras are sensitive bits of equipment and they are very good at going wrong all by themselves without people helping them along. By collecting images of our driving staff, we need to be registers with the Information Commissioner as a Data Controller, and ensure we abide by the Data Protection Act. I wrote our company policy on this. By working at the company, you agree to be bound by the terms, if you don’t wish to be, then it’s a simple choice. Interestingly, you are entitled to a copy of any footage featuring you, but the company can also charge up to a set amount for providing this to you. I would encourage everyone to go and read the published guidelines on CCTV from the Information Commissioners Office. Your privacy is protected, but not to the extent you might feel it should be.

Our cameras turn themselves off 10 minutes or so after ignition is off, so what you do in your own time is up to you. Regardless, I have a busy 70 hour+ week, do drivers really think I want to be looking at them in their own time. I’ll pass on that one thanks. :confused:

Interestingly, we have had incidents of catastrophic seat failure in one particular marque of truck, the seat support would snap and throw the driver into the back wall of the cab :open_mouth: , potentially causing a serious accident. We have been lucky in the three cases this has happened, but luck was all it was. We can use this footage to prove to the manufacturer that they have a serious problem with their design or materials.

It’s funny those who have had non fault accidents and avoided prosecution, investigation, fines or simply having their job and reputation protected, are usually very strong advocates of the camera after the event.

We have saved tens of thousands of pounds, thanks to the cameras in the short couple of years I have been doing this. After accidents when accusations have been thrown by the third party. If I can prove that the driver was doing what he should have been doing (or to the best of his ability) at the time of the accident, then case closed. It’s usually those who have been caught out by the cameras that are against them the most. The systems pay for themselves many times over, and with schemes like FORS, CLOCS, WRRR and Crossrail, and whatever else in the future, you can guarantee camera systems in general are here to stay. Having a camera on the driver is an obvious addition.

If you are being a professional then I will do my best to defend you with the footage, including going to court on your behalf. If you are being daft, and texting, facebooking, whatsapping or playing pokemon or whatever it is as you drive along, then I will pass the footage on to my director and the police if necessary, and you are on your own. I’ve witnessed a death first hand on the road as a result of a driver not paying attention, my sympathy for not paying the proper attention is zero.

I’ll be honest, mobile phones and other distractions for drivers at the wheel are a real worry for the future. Roads are busier, cyclists are more prevalent, the job is arguably more demanding, we need drivers to pay attention, and they are doing that less. Sat in the second seat, it’s worrying the amount of times I have to ask people to leave their phone alone.

I’m sorry if this isn’t what most people want to hear, nobody likes having their privacy invaded, I get that. The reality of “making a stand” against them though is a bit of a non starter unless you are unionised, and even then, the Information Commissioners Office will always support cameras in the interest of safety, and private companies are pretty much free to operate how they wish on the right side of the law. You either work for them or you don’t.

It is a bit 1984 in that “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” sort of feeling, but this is true of every industry and workplace now not just in transport.

127

WildGoose:
Our cameras turn themselves off 10 minutes or so after ignition is off, so what you do in your own time is up to you.

Can I ask why I’m not free to do what I please in the first 10 minutes of “my own time”?

And it’s all very well saying that people are free to request a copy of all information held digitally about them, but how can you know that the person supplying the information isn’t withholding information? As Rjan says, the deck is stacked against you…

Everyone will at some point make a mistake or do something wrong, and this leave you wide open to persecution. Again, as Rjan states, you may be no worse than any other driver, and as you have NO RIGHTS under the data protection act for information pertaining to other drivers, you will be unable to prove persecution. So as a result if a firm/manager has it in for you, you’re screwed! :cry:

128

This would result in a lot of ‘comfort breaks’ during a shift. Every time you wanted a swig from a cup or bottle, every time you feel peckish etc etc etc. Being constantly monitored would mean having to pull in every time you felt a slight discomfort because you couldn’t use your professional judgement to decide when the road conditions allow for these activities. What I mean is that drinking a coffee in a village centre is normally dangerous but that same activity on a reasonably quiet motorway is safe to do. Technically there is no difference but in the real world, we all know there is a difference but the camera could be used against you anyway.

If I find one of these in any truck that I climb into then I climb straight back out and go home. Its a step too far for me when the trust is no longer there

129

WildGoose:
It’s an interesting debate. I’ll add my 2 pence.

I work in a management position now, I have been a driver for many years, and of course, in that capacity, I was dead against the intrusion of privacy that they appeared to be in my own head, from my very limited perspective at the time. On a fleet of any size, as a driver, we really don’t see the bigger picture. It has honestly been really interesting having the opportunity to see things from both sides. I hope it makes me better at my job now.

I have direct responsibility for all our fleet cameras, getting people to stop interfering with them, blocking them, sabotaging them etc is a constant problem, and a very expensive one. Cameras are sensitive bits of equipment and they are very good at going wrong all by themselves without people helping them along. By collecting images of our driving staff, we need to be registers with the Information Commissioner as a Data Controller, and ensure we abide by the Data Protection Act. I wrote our company policy on this. By working at the company, you agree to be bound by the terms, if you don’t wish to be, then it’s a simple choice. Interestingly, you are entitled to a copy of any footage featuring you, but the company can also charge up to a set amount for providing this to you. I would encourage everyone to go and read the published guidelines on CCTV from the Information Commissioners Office. Your privacy is protected, but not to the extent you might feel it should be.

Our cameras turn themselves off 10 minutes or so after ignition is off, so what you do in your own time is up to you. Regardless, I have a busy 70 hour+ week, do drivers really think I want to be looking at them in their own time. I’ll pass on that one thanks. :confused:

Interestingly, we have had incidents of catastrophic seat failure in one particular marque of truck, the seat support would snap and throw the driver into the back wall of the cab :open_mouth: , potentially causing a serious accident. We have been lucky in the three cases this has happened, but luck was all it was. We can use this footage to prove to the manufacturer that they have a serious problem with their design or materials.

It’s funny those who have had non fault accidents and avoided prosecution, investigation, fines or simply having their job and reputation protected, are usually very strong advocates of the camera after the event.

We have saved tens of thousands of pounds, thanks to the cameras in the short couple of years I have been doing this. After accidents when accusations have been thrown by the third party. If I can prove that the driver was doing what he should have been doing (or to the best of his ability) at the time of the accident, then case closed. It’s usually those who have been caught out by the cameras that are against them the most. The systems pay for themselves many times over, and with schemes like FORS, CLOCS, WRRR and Crossrail, and whatever else in the future, you can guarantee camera systems in general are here to stay. Having a camera on the driver is an obvious addition.

If you are being a professional then I will do my best to defend you with the footage, including going to court on your behalf. If you are being daft, and texting, facebooking, whatsapping or playing pokemon or whatever it is as you drive along, then I will pass the footage on to my director and the police if necessary, and you are on your own. I’ve witnessed a death first hand on the road as a result of a driver not paying attention, my sympathy for not paying the proper attention is zero.

I’ll be honest, mobile phones and other distractions for drivers at the wheel are a real worry for the future. Roads are busier, cyclists are more prevalent, the job is arguably more demanding, we need drivers to pay attention, and they are doing that less. Sat in the second seat, it’s worrying the amount of times I have to ask people to leave their phone alone.

I’m sorry if this isn’t what most people want to hear, nobody likes having their privacy invaded, I get that. The reality of “making a stand” against them though is a bit of a non starter unless you are unionised, and even then, the Information Commissioners Office will always support cameras in the interest of safety, and private companies are pretty much free to operate how they wish on the right side of the law. You either work for them or you don’t.

It is a bit 1984 in that “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” sort of feeling, but this is true of every industry and workplace now not just in transport.

:open_mouth: Well well, well, that was impressive.
For an ex driver it has not took you long to put your boots on the other feet, get your suit and tie on, morph into management mode and regurgitate all the management speak/bull crap in the form of a positive spin, that is usually directed in a patronising way to us uneducated great unwashed working class scum to convince us all this stuff is for ‘‘Our benefit’’ :unamused:
…You will go far mate, keep it up! :wink:
(But bear in mind not all of us are so gullible, and we see things for what they REALLY are, and can see hidden agendas as fast as your BMW gets you to your next management meeting)

130

WildGoose:
By working at the company, you agree to be bound by the terms, if you don’t wish to be, then it’s a simple choice.

So firstly, we’ve got bosses saying “take it or leave it”.

Interestingly, you are entitled to a copy of any footage featuring you, but the company can also charge up to a set amount for providing this to you.

So bosses can review everyone’s footage for free, but the subjects will be charged to review their own footage (and not allowed access to anybody else’s)?

Our cameras turn themselves off 10 minutes or so after ignition is off, so what you do in your own time is up to you.

Who controls the length of this time-out? And does the engine have to be running?

I would think the time frames defined by “ignition on or ten minutes subsequently” and “personal time” frequently overlap.

It’s funny those who have had non fault accidents and avoided prosecution, investigation, fines or simply having their job and reputation protected, are usually very strong advocates of the camera after the event.

Nobody really disputes this. It is the “bundling” of several functions together (not all of which are for the driver’s benefit), and the lack of control, that concerns most drivers.

I’m sorry if this isn’t what most people want to hear, nobody likes having their privacy invaded, I get that. The reality of “making a stand” against them though is a bit of a non starter unless you are unionised, and even then, the Information Commissioners Office will always support cameras in the interest of safety, and private companies are pretty much free to operate how they wish on the right side of the law. You either work for them or you don’t.

Or as you recognise, you unionise, and the employer either gets work done using drivers who aren’t recorded against their will, or the employer doesn’t get work done.

131

The lack of transparency from the management regarding the cameras is something that really winds me up. For example, in my current job, I have been withheld information, and lied to twice about the in-cab CCTV. The manager did not mention a single thing about them during the interview, nor did the driver trainer during the induction. It was only when I saw them in another cab that I asked questions. A driver trainer I asked said that they were activated by G-force, such as that caused by harsh braking or a collision, and therefore the footage can only be viewed in retrospect, after an incident. The same driver trainer then said that only he and his colleague have access to the footage of the entire fleet, nobody else. When I was at another depot yesterday, there was a poster on the wall about the cameras, telling you how to manually switch them off during breaks and rest, so obviously they are running all of the time, or you wouldn’t have to switch them off. That’s one lie. Then on the poster were two different names of footage reviewers, not the driver trainer I asked and his colleague. So more people have access to the footage than he said, so it’s another lie. It’s a real “them and us” mentality.

WildGoose, I understand you’ve fell on your feet and got a decent managerial job, and you’re clearly not daft, you put a decent argument together, but as an ex-driver, surely you can see it more how it is? As a tramped, the job is hard enough as it is. Long hours, four nights away from home per week, tight schedules, the public and customers treating you like crap, constantly watching your hours to avoid a big fine, the list goes on. I do it, because I enjoy it, but a camera in my cab would push me over the edge, and that would be it. For me, cameras are a step too far, and just far too intrusive for a tramper who lives on the road, spending around 110 hours per week in a cab. It’s just not worth the £9-odd per hour that I get. I’m not willing to be in a position where I could end-up in prison by taking a sip of coffee at the wrong time, and the footage ending-up on the wrong person’s desk. I never thought I’d say this, but it’s more than my job’s worth.

I know it’s a trust issue, and I completely agree that employer-employee relations have gone through the window. Firms putting cameras in their cabs just proves it, zero trust anymore. Them and us.

The whole issue is so 1984-esque. Being constantly watched and monitored, and being told by big brother that “if you’re doing nothing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”, It’s “for the greater good”, and “your own benefit”. When the true motive is complete and utter control.

132

.

133

they are coming the same as more speed cameras are coming…the bigger the company,the sooner you will be looking at one.if you don’t like it,then leave and postpone the inevitable,but soon enough,no matter who you work for ,then you will be looking at one.you will all just bend over and take it with a little wriggling and grunting,but you will have no escape in a few years,so unless you want to work in a different profession,then you might as well get used to the idea…as soon as an insurance co reduces a premium by 10p per year,then that company will have them installed…you may leave,but the next bum in your seal will accept it.you can work for smaller and smaller companies and hope your retiring before they too have them,but after a while,insurance companies will just put such a levy on premiums without cameras that they will have to be installed across the board and itl only be the cowboy outfits that turn a blind eye to them being accidentally disabled.so bend over and grit your teeth dudes,then remember to comb your hair and smile…cos your on camera… :smiley:

134

Would the boss have a camera in his bedroom? Would he ■■■■■■■■.

■■■■ the management. Invasively monitoring your workforce is for one reason only - to help them line the pockets of their latest sharp suit and contribute to another pair of pointy shoes.

135

It’s yet more evidence of this countries unhealthy obsession with cctv. Makes you wonder how many sci-fi films have inspired the government, and what’s being worked on for the future. Total recall? Minority report? Who knows.

I’m all for keeping the streets safe, and I am pro cctv to a point. But when the Shetland isles has more cctv than San Francisco, you need to take a reality check.

shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/07/ … on-the-way

136

OVLOV JAY:
It’s yet more evidence of this countries unhealthy obsession with cctv. Makes you wonder how many sci-fi films have inspired the government, and what’s being worked on for the future. Total recall? Minority report? Who knows.

I’m all for keeping the streets safe, and I am pro cctv to a point. But when the Shetland isles has more cctv than San Francisco, you need to take a reality check.

shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/07/ … on-the-way

A necessary evil i suppose . San francisco has lots of real live policemen to deal with crime , we get cameras and police are as rare as hens teeth .

137

dieseldog999:
they are coming the same as more speed cameras are coming…the bigger the company,the sooner you will be looking at one.if you don’t like it,then leave and postpone the inevitable,but soon enough,no matter who you work for ,then you will be looking at one.you will all just bend over and take it with a little wriggling and grunting,but you will have no escape in a few years,so unless you want to work in a different profession,then you might as well get used to the idea…as soon as an insurance co reduces a premium by 10p per year,then that company will have them installed…you may leave,but the next bum in your seal will accept it.you can work for smaller and smaller companies and hope your retiring before they too have them,but after a while,insurance companies will just put such a levy on premiums without cameras that they will have to be installed across the board and itl only be the cowboy outfits that turn a blind eye to them being accidentally disabled.so bend over and grit your teeth dudes,then remember to comb your hair and smile…cos your on camera… :smiley:

I agree with that, I reckon that in five years time, they will be industry-wide, and as widely accepted as dashcams. Newcomers into the job will just be met with a shrug, and the comment of “it’s just the way it is”. Heaven forbid, the EU could get involved, and in many years time, forward and driver-facing cameras could become a legal requirement, like the tachograph and CPC. It’s a scary time for the haulage industry.

My question is whether haulage firms will stick them in their cabs, offer £9 per hour, and then wonder why on earth they can’t get drivers? I know they probably will.

Will there be enough people in the future wanting to do the job? Will in-cab CCTV be another brick in the wall keeping-out new blood? Personally, I think any haulage company that installs them are ■■■■■■■ in their own bed. In five years time they’ll have to lay in it.

138

[/quote]
You talk in jest, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone decides we should have tracking chips in our heads :open_mouth:
[/quote]
Most people carry their spies in their pockets.
Location service turned on, for your benefit? Same with wi-fi. Large shopping centres track customers path through by phone location or wi-fi, all free information. More lingering, higher rent!
Look what folk put on social media, look I’m a ■■■■■ see the video! Ooh a camera on me all day, must do my hair [emoji8]

Sent from my X17 using Tapatalk

139

Keedwells have them. I believe that the office bods can view you when they want… Without you knowing, which is not good.

140

PandyDandy:
Keedwells have them. I believe that the office bods can view you when they want… Without you knowing, which is not good.

That would surprise me mate, as I know a driver for them! :confused: