And where is the money saved being spent? Improved drivers conditions or the gaffers new range rover fund? Answers on a postcard please.
The answer is really simple. At the minute, some jobs are so poor that they’ll only attract idiots. When these idiots do what they do, something idiotic, they just start work the very next day on another rubbish job. Wash rinse repeat.
What’s needed is a job that people dont want to lose. A job that attracts people who arent idiots to start with. Better conditions, higher calibre applicant, pick of the crop. Better conditions than local rivals and nobody wants to leave (or sacked). People who dont want to leave perform better. Better staff and weedle the idiots out of this industry forever.
But no, these places take the cheap option. Treat all drivers like idiots and when all the decent drivers have gone to places like those I described above, all your left with is idiots and the problems they cause.
That is the case in a nutshell, some companies are trying to manage decline in quality of driver performance by utilising ever more systems to try and prevent idiots, that they employed and failed to weed out when it was obvious they would never be drivers, from doing what they d.
After years of doing the same thing repeatedly whilst expecting a different result…the definition of lunacy…you would think someone might have twigged that what has been and is being done isn’t working and change tack.
Rowley010:
Of course your innocent til proven guilty. And is this instance the driver facing camera proved that innocence. You absolute moron.
The idea of innocent until proven guilty is that there should be no need for the driver facing camera. The burden should have been on the accuser to provide evidence of the driver committing some kind of wrong, not the other way around
But it’s nice to know you can be instantly clearer especially if it’s your word against someone else’s and there’s any doubt, the camera means it’s not just your word anymore it means there is clear evidence your side of it.
Another example where I know it’s helped someone out is in an incident whilst changing lanes car in the blind spot (which I’m always dubious of the blind spot excuse) but the camera showed that he did in fact check all his mirrors before moving.
[/quote]
If it’s your word against someone else’s, you would hope that your employer would believe his employee rather than a stranger. That’s how it should be, and why there should be no need for driver facing cameras.
Every driver only has to not go into work next Monday/Tuesday and problem solved.
Ball’s in your court WHM employees…
On Monday morning your seat is filled with agency. Plenty of agency at this time of year sat around doing nothing. By Tuesday agency drivers have demonstrated just how much you’re dragging the job out when drivers who’ve never ever worked at WHM manage to do the job just as well but in less time. By Friday the company has saved so much money on fuel and wages that they start writing out job offers to the agency and dismissal notices to the employees.
Grumpy Dad:
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.
Actually i do blame the companies.
For various reasons they employed a number sub standard drivers, who soon proved what they were in various ways and instead of bravely nipping them in the bud and getting shot, or retraining if possible, instead they went for the easy option, tar everyone with the same brush, one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator, which inevitably leads to more sub standard people being employed.
Treat everyone like they are the most incompetent fool the company managed to find, issue memos that everyone including those who never cause any issues and have done the job well for years have to sign, fit more and more systems and employ more methods to stop idiots from doing what idiots do, each step in the dumbing down process allowing the next worse level of competence to seek and gain employment there, a faster way to demoralise and ruin an operation i have yet to see, this is downskilling not skilling up, where and when exactly is someone going to say STOP and have a rethink.
Driver facing cameras are just the latest in a long line of answers to the problems of management who failed to spot and deal at the time with those not up to the job, but then its a job to know who your staff are when you hide away in an office anything from several hundred yards to several hundred miles from the people you employ and who you should know, and instead rely on the reports from junior admin/management who have also learned its best to tell higher ups what they want to hear instead of the actual truth.
Perhaps if you included the previous paragraph of my comment you’d see why I can understand a company wanting to protect its investments and reduce its ever increasing maintenance costs and insurance payouts.
“I fully understand why companies feel the need to fit camera systems, increasing insurance and maintenance costs through driver neglect can force some companies to fold, some drivers can’t get out of the yard without posting on social media or taking a selfie, others watch netflix or some other streaming service.
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.”
I do agree with you that companies should be more selective with recruitment, it’s not as though getting a licence isn’t hard to achieve, but unless a company rep babysits a driver during his shift, a driver is free to do as he pleases in the driving seat, ie Facebook etc.
Years ago Eddie Stobart would fine his drivers if they were to be seen by the public and reported out of uniform while on shift, this included the company tie, back in those days there was no method to prove a driver was or wasn’t, but today there is, and sadly it’s got to a stage where there’s too many incidents where drivers are no longer giving their full attention to the job in hand and being distracted by video chats etc.
Unfortunately no amount of retraining will help, as soon as the driver is through the gate he’s basically out of sight out of mind and being trusted by the company to carry out his daily task giving it his full attention.
I haven’t worked for a company that have had these fitted, and I wouldn’t but then again I wouldn’t work for a large company, and if a driver feels strongly against company policies then he /she / they should look for something else.
And where is the money saved being spent? Improved drivers conditions or the gaffers new range rover fund? Answers on a postcard please.
The answer is really simple. At the minute, some jobs are so poor that they’ll only attract idiots. When these idiots do what they do, something idiotic, they just start work the very next day on another rubbish job. Wash rinse repeat.
What’s needed is a job that people dont want to lose. A job that attracts people who arent idiots to start with. Better conditions, higher calibre applicant, pick of the crop. Better conditions than local rivals and nobody wants to leave (or sacked). People who dont want to leave perform better. Better staff and weedle the idiots out of this industry forever.
But no, these places take the cheap option. Treat all drivers like idiots and when all the decent drivers have gone to places like those I described above, all your left with is idiots and the problems they cause.
The haulage industry is knackered and has been for years, it’s been hammered by increasing overheads while being undercut by competitors.
Small cowboy outfits setting up and cutting the job to ribbons, accidents to property and vehicles with insurance claims being put against them having a knock on effect to other companies ( much like our own vehicle insurance that increases yearly due to other poor road users ).
Many of the drivers get in the saddle with a half arsed attitude, it’s not their vehicle or equipment and it’s not them paying the fuel either, poor driving standards causing excessive wear and tear on the vehicle, increased mpg, damage to loads and accidents.
Where and how exactly is a company supposed to find a pool of drivers they can rely on ? How is a company supposed to protect itself against insurance claims caused by supposed improper driving, it’s one drivers word against another, and usually it’s the so called professional driver at fault.
Perhaps these large companies would invest in driver facilities and increased standards if they could lower the financial loses made by drivers.
And maybe these larger companies could recruit better transport and fleet managers to oversee the drivers recruitment process, but time is money and even TM’s have KPI’s to meet.
Grumpy Dad:
Don’t start blaming the companies for wanting to protect itself from insurance claims against it, when the fault is the canteen cowboys who claim to be drivers.
Actually i do blame the companies.
For various reasons they employed a number sub standard drivers, who soon proved what they were in various ways and instead of bravely nipping them in the bud and getting shot, or retraining if possible, instead they went for the easy option, tar everyone with the same brush, one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator, which inevitably leads to more sub standard people being employed.
Treat everyone like they are the most incompetent fool the company managed to find, issue memos that everyone including those who never cause any issues and have done the job well for years have to sign, fit more and more systems and employ more methods to stop idiots from doing what idiots do, each step in the dumbing down process allowing the next worse level of competence to seek and gain employment there, a faster way to demoralise and ruin an operation i have yet to see, this is downskilling not skilling up, where and when exactly is someone going to say STOP and have a rethink.
Driver facing cameras are just the latest in a long line of answers to the problems of management who failed to spot and deal at the time with those not up to the job, but then its a job to know who your staff are when you hide away in an office anything from several hundred yards to several hundred miles from the people you employ and who you should know, and instead rely on the reports from junior admin/management who have also learned its best to tell higher ups what they want to hear instead of the actual truth.
Rowley010:
Of course your innocent til proven guilty. And is this instance the driver facing camera proved that innocence. You absolute moron.
The idea of innocent until proven guilty is that there should be no need for the driver facing camera. The burden should have been on the accuser to provide evidence of the driver committing some kind of wrong, not the other way around
But it’s nice to know you can be instantly clearer especially if it’s your word against someone else’s and there’s any doubt, the camera means it’s not just your word anymore it means there is clear evidence your side of it.
Another example where I know it’s helped someone out is in an incident whilst changing lanes car in the blind spot (which I’m always dubious of the blind spot excuse) but the camera showed that he did in fact check all his mirrors before moving.
If it’s your word against someone else’s, you would hope that your employer would believe his employee rather than a stranger. That’s how it should be, and why there should be no need for driver facing cameras.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
[/quote]
So whilst someone is trying to accuse of something would you rather sit and wait while they attempt to get you done for something? And at the end of the day even though your innocent there’s a chance the other side could be believed over you because that’s how life works out sometimes. Or, you could accept the cameras for what they are and be able to prove your innocence immediately and even go as far as report the other party for wasting police time or fraud while your at it. I know which I’d rather.
The fact is chaps (and Chapesses) all big companies have cameras unless they self insure. It’s only a matter of time before insurance companies make demands to small companies also that cameras are installed and threaten huge premiums if they don’t because seeing the truth in the aftermath of an incident can save them thousands of pounds. So like telematics you can hate it all, or try and see the positive in it which I’ve tried to put across partly here but I always knew I’d get shot down with you lot on here.
Rowley010:
The fact is chaps (and Chapesses) all big companies have cameras unless they self insure. It’s only a matter of time before insurance companies make demands to small companies also that cameras are installed and threaten huge premiums if they don’t because seeing the truth in the aftermath of an incident can save them thousands of pounds. So like telematics you can hate it all, or try and see the positive in it which I’ve tried to put across partly here but I always knew I’d get shot down with you lot on here.
Rowley010:
The fact is chaps (and Chapesses) all big companies have cameras unless they self insure. It’s only a matter of time before insurance companies make demands to small companies also that cameras are installed and threaten huge premiums if they don’t because seeing the truth in the aftermath of an incident can save them thousands of pounds. So like telematics you can hate it all, or try and see the positive in it which I’ve tried to put across partly here but I always knew I’d get shot down with you lot on here.
Like anything else, there will be positives and there will be negatives. In the case of in cab cameras, the negatives far outweigh the positives. For every person they help, they will punish dozens, especially if you have management who view drivers as a lower life form.
While it’s usually an admirable trait to see the positive, I’m afraid you’re seeing the silver lining of a mushroom cloud
Rowley010:
. It’s only a matter of time before insurance companies make demands to small companies also that cameras are installed and threaten huge premiums if they don’t because seeing the truth in the aftermath of an incident can save them thousands of pounds…
That could be adequately achieved by outward facing cameras, I personally have no problem with those.
You just don’t get it Rowley do you?
Many of us see cameras facing us as a step too far in the job, a liberty, and an insult to professionalism.
I refer to the ones (myself included) who are not as terminally and tragically subservient as yourself, who have a bit of pride and self respect, and do not readily bend over at the drop of a hat when told to.
Rowley010:
. It’s only a matter of time before insurance companies make demands to small companies also that cameras are installed and threaten huge premiums if they don’t because seeing the truth in the aftermath of an incident can save them thousands of pounds…
That could be adequately achieved by outward facing cameras, I personally have no problem with those.
You just don’t get it Rowley do you?
Many of us see cameras facing us as a step too far in the job, a liberty, and an insult to professionalism.
I refer to the ones (myself included) who are not as terminally and tragically subservient as yourself, who have a bit of pride and self respect, and do not readily bend over at the drop of a hat when told to.
Thing is he will not nind a camera pointing at him as long as he can post on youtube and become a driving legend who can reverse onto tight bays and dread the overhang of 1 wheel on the tri axle hanging off some cliff edge ■■■■■■ That recovery program the was on telly summed up how the drama that doesnt exist and the situations that im sure weve all encountered at some point along our miles on tarmac.
Its like the kardashians of truck driving. Normal every day occurrances dramatised to within an inch of its life. These nuggets think its amazing.
Rowley010:
But it’s nice to know you can be instantly clearer especially if it’s your word against someone else’s and there’s any doubt, the camera means it’s not just your word anymore it means there is clear evidence your side of it.
If you’re happy working for a company that assumes you’re lying until proven otherwise, then crack on. I’m happy for you.
Me, I’d rather work for a company that assumes I’m telling the truth until proven otherwise. I am after all, a professional.
Im not like the old guard/pros on here as I have only been doing driving a little over 10yrs so don’t remember the horse and cart years but I still think Microlise and interior cameras are ridiculous. If they wanted they could fit them all over the outside, not a problem.
My employer lets us move millions of pounds worth a medical trailers, some up to 4.3m wide, even to Europe, all with just a dashcam. They were only fitted after one unit got reversed into when the driver was sleeping in the services so these turn on when an impact is felt.
I have only driven at one company that used Microlise and at the end of each shift you had a debrief and they told you your scores as it effected your bonus. They were say, “You knackered your score with a harsh brake the tracker says you did outside Harrods”, “Well next time I will hit the tourist on their phone walking into the road then as they just cost me £12”.
Rowley010 as a fellow newbie don’t say yes to this costly equipment, ask for more pay and better colleagues that meet your grade
Rowley010:
But it’s nice to know you can be instantly clearer especially if it’s your word against someone else’s and there’s any doubt, the camera means it’s not just your word anymore it means there is clear evidence your side of it.
If you’re happy working for a company that assumes you’re lying until proven otherwise, then crack on. I’m happy for you.
Me, I’d rather work for a company that assumes I’m telling the truth until proven otherwise. I am after all, a professional.
Your missing my point. They don’t assume your lying. It maybe one day you could prove it to the police not your company. But if you’d rather leave it them just believing your word then that’s fine that’s your opinion this is mine. Like I said cameras outward and inward are here to stay so you can keep moaning at them or see the positive in them.
Rowley010:
What it is really why you lot are so against a driver facing camera is because you don’t want your boss to see you tossing it off whilst your driving.
Not to that extreme, but the main issue is one of privacy. While you’re driving, your cab is the equivalent to your managers office, except you can’t just step outside for a ■■■, or have something to eat or drink at the wheel, as all of those things are now illegal, so if you’re seen doing any of these things, you’re gone.
Then you’ve got all the other things a cab can become. If you’re a tramper then your cab becomes your home away from home, so it’s your bedroom, living room, kitchen even your bathroom. If you have no idea who, when or why cameras can be accessed, during any of your private time, then of course you aren’t going to want them there.
but your boss in his office can’t seriously hurt someone, kill someone, or doing thousands of pounds of damage if they act in an inappropriate manner whilst driving. They aren’t interested in you tossing it off as long as you don’t stain the truck upholstery. They aren’t interested in you scratching your balls, picking your nose, singing very badly and out of tune, having a conversation with the mrs or a mate as long it’s all hands free and legal. They just want to see what happened right before an incident. I know someone bosses will use it to find dirt on a driver and twist things a bit but they aren’t all like that. You get drivers who a pricks and deserve it, you get bosses who are pricks also. Doesn’t mean both sides are always like that. My company seem fair in the way they use the cameras and with regards to privacy. And I’ll say it again despite the abuse, in a false accusation with your company or police if your innocent it could help show that and you could even then fire it back at the accuser and get the police to do em for wasting police time or insurance fraud.
