WH Malcolm to fit driver facing cameras

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
81

2 possible scenarios here Rowley…

You’re either on one big continuous wind up on here, coming across as somebody who believes all this type of stuff, just to provoke a reaction and debate…as you do with your road safety posts, but in reality you’re not entirely serious, and having a bit of a laugh. :smiley:

Or…

You’re a complete brainwashed yes man who believes every bit of corporate ■■■■■■■■ that you’re told, right up your boss’s arse, and about as popular as haemmeroids with your fellow drivers.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll go for the first option, as I’m thinking that you may have a bit of self pride after all, so I’ll continue to enjoy your posts, as at least they are entertaining, and I’ll keep responding to you,.and keep it going just in the spirit of the forum.

82

Rowley010:
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.

You’ve just admitted one of the biggest issues! That even you know some bosses who would use it against drivers who they may have a vendetta or agenda against!
And as for accidents, who determines how long is ‘right before’ an accident. Could it be 30 seconds? Or 30 minutes? Or however long it takes to find driver fault?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

83

Rowley010:
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.

And what happens to poor Rowley010 when he gets a boss that doesn’t like him and twists things, things are not fair anymore, will he come on here crying?

84

outside the cab is public space hence theres no arguement for cameras if your company wants them.
inside the cab is your personal living space hence theres no right for cameras to intrude there.
if they wish to intruce,then just leave and find another job where you are treated with more respect.
irrespective of whether you drive normally or as rowley and jts imagine they drive, then the justification of being watched is irrelevant,its your own personal space thats being intruded on.
the police are responsible for deciding if someone is driving improperly,not some ham shank in a traffic office.

85

Rowley010:
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.

How do you know if or when the CAB CAMERA is rolling then?

Did your firm lay out in black/white the exact extent an details to the above QUESTION?

No looking for nowt, just be genuinely interested as to how it’s been justified to you by your company.

Im led to believe a rather large player in the games in cab cameras only operate if a braking incident accurs…

Yet it still raises the question of has that been made clear in document, it CAN’T/ WONT be viewed otherwise and what’s in place to ensure all this.

Im also looking at it from a data protection, invasion of privacy kinda way, BUT ultimately its their vehicle despite your role within it so to me its a very blurry line indeed and one I’m interested to see the facts of.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

86

Rowley010:
“As far as I’m aware that’s how my company operates theirs. A planner who’s got an issue with a particular drivers has not authority to access footage to try and find some dirt on them. They are only viewed if there is an incident or serious enough allegation. I’d personal say driver on phone is a serious enough allegation to investigate. I’d hope all companies would…probably not though”

As far as you are aware? So, the company have driver facing camera’s and yet have not given you the correct paperwork on how they tend to use the data held on you and how the policy works … you and the nothing wrong brigade, just make sure when the pretend complaint from a fake member of the public goes in against you, to catch you out… sorry, but your proper blinded to the use of driver facing camera’s … no camera in a cab facing a driver is a good camera. Your either a troll or a company man who will grass up another driver with no issue.

87

The Rowley 010 chap is not real anyways, so I am aghast that most of you reply to his observations as often as you do.

As for inward facing cameras…I have always maintained that they are not good for mental health, no surveillance camera is, it can amplify already negative personality traits in one and cause others that would otherwise not manifest, so for those reasons alone I would refuse flatly to be monitored by such technology.

Also it can erode your ability to trust others and since trust is what all and every relationship is based on, even the one with yourself, it makes it impossible for me to even consider it.

You may also forget that a camera is there and incriminate yourself by your actions…This is what they want, so those who own the operation can negate themselves of all and any responsibility, both for themselves and the insurance co.

Also…It requires you to be perfect at all times and we are humans, not robots, we will make mistakes and there will always be someone ready to jump on you to ensure you carry the can…I am not saying that you should negate your own responsibilities, but that you should be trusted to perform your duties in a reasonable manner and with diligence.

Cameras are just wrong, in every aspect of our lives.

88

Tude:
The Rowley 010 chap is not real anyways, so I am aghast that most of you reply to his observations as often as you do.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it passes the time during quiet periods and can also amuse when they think someone else is taking him/them serious.
needless to say jakethesnake is right in there swapping comics with him as its just another aspect of how poor driving standard ect so that we get it in stereo now.
it soes amaze and somehow sadden me though when i see replies from others who really should know better and nor be taken in by the repetitive mince…hey ho,its only sat nite,still half the weekend to go…
wheres uktrampdrdamon and the rest when you need a third opinion… :smiley:

89

I was looking up various articles and reports regarding our surveillance society when I found this, strangely enough from 1984:

‘"‘IN a free society,’’ wrote the French philosopher Montesquieu, ‘‘it is not always important that individuals reason well, it is sufficient that they reason; from their individual thought, freedom is born.’’

Exactly two centuries later, in his futuristic novel ‘‘1984,’’ the English political novelist George Orwell gave a tragic illustration of what the world would be without the freedom to think. Orwell had the intention to call his book ‘‘The Last Man in Europe,’’ as a tribute to the essential quality that distinguished man from the world around him, namely his ability to think for himself.

Winston, the main character of the novel, lives in a country where individual thought is banned, where only the leader, Big Brother, is allowed to reason and to decide. Prodded by his natural need for reflection and critical analysis, Winston finds it hard not to make use of his inborn talents. He starts questioning the wisdom of Big Brother and moves hopefully toward his own liberation. But in his struggle for emancipation he stands alone. The large mass of common people do not find in themselves the need to think independently, to question or to investigate what they have been taught. His fellow intellectuals have sold their inalienable right to think freely for security and a semblance of physical well-being. Winston is the last man in Europe, the only human being who wants to use his independent mind. He can not believe that he is alone, that he is the last man in London to resist Big Brother’s conquest of the minds. He trusts the wrong men and is doomed to fail. When he finally is ‘‘converted’’ to believe in and to love Big Brother, another slave is born, another cog is placed in the machinery of the State, the last man in Europe is dead.

‘‘1984’’ is a political statement. It contains no prophetic declaration, only a simple warning to mankind. Orwell did not believe that 35 years after the publication of his book, the world would be ruled by Big Brother, but he often proclaimed that 1984 could happen if man did not become aware of the assaults on his personal freedom and did not defend his most precious right, the right to have his own thoughts"

nytimes.com/1984/01/01/nyre … -1984.html

90

As an addition to my last post, I personally dont do social media. Facebook, Twitter or whatever are monitored by my company and i know that things I say, do or think and have said, have done and have thought could cost me my job. What is the point in having a platform of free speech when that free speech could cost me my job, regardless of any laws not being broken. Exhaustive surveillance only ever benefits the surveyor.

As a trans person I have spent decades in hiding, avoiding the watchful eye of everyone. Not because what I am or do is illegal, but because i know the consequences of being seen (from painful experience). People see what they want to see, especially if it “justifies” their later actions.

The idea of in cab cameras being “for my benefit” is the same old diatribe that’s rolled out every time our freedoms are curtailed. Whether that’s our internet history being monitored, our phone calls logged or the network of cameras that cover our roads. Always, for our benefit, yet all these systems are in place to catch wrongdoers. I’m not a wrong doer as the majority arent, so why do we all need to be treated this way just to catch the few?

As a direct question to YOU rowley10, if you have nothing to hide, why do you draw your curtains at night?

91

cameras don’t even need to be facing the driver … I know a case where a driver clipped a car mirror. the transport office sherlock viewed the footage from the 5 (yes 5) cameras… and saw what had happened… then went back through the footage and nailed him for using his phone , all because they could see the reflection in the windscreen.

92

Before I got my class one used to be on the buses when they introduced these.

They were put in on the basis of driver safety and they would be pointed at the window for assaults etc union sold us out and they installed them.

Low and behold the next week a driver got done for talking to a passenger whilst driving and the footage showed the cameras were xrieftly trained on the drivers face and body.

Be in no doubt whatever ■■■■■ they say they will be used to in force minor indiscretions.

93

The perverse thing is…they won’t sack you anyway.

94

When 5G . 6G comes in then someone will be sitting in a dark room with hundreds of tv screens in front of them .Watching us all in real time. The company will be selling the data to the next Cambridge Analytics.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

95

What problem if you do all correctly.■■? Most bank staff,supermarlet staff work under CCTV ready to many years.

96

Andrejs:
What problem if you do all correctly.■■? Most bank staff,supermarlet staff work under CCTV ready to many years.

Ok, you buy a new car, and install a dash cam front and rear, why do you think that is… it’s not because of the nice fancy looking camera… it’s to ensure any incidents are recorded…
supermarkets and banks have cameras to 1, ensure theft is kept to a minimum and record staff to stop them stealing … that’s a fact … if your naive to think your employers won’t use driver facing camera against you well then your as naive as Rowley, as mentioned these companies have no lawful right to your image… is it is your employment contract in relation to your image rights being passed on to a 3rd party? …ie insurance company, don’t use the streets and all have cameras if you shop in a supermarket you agree upon entry to use of cctv … however in your employment contract it needs to be shown and also, what they do with the Data and image etc …

97

cameras are there for one reason only, to blame somebody for anything that goes wrong.
It’s not about the elf’s it’s about blame culture.

We have forwarded facing and side cameras, no problems with them, as they can be used in your defense, as well as guilt, so far been used successfully to show other Muppets on the road,have caused the incidents.and when refusing to go into a drop why because of Hazards.

They are here to stay, it just depends on the company you work for, how they use them.

98

biggriffin:
cameras are there for one reason only, to blame somebody for anything that goes wrong.
It’s not about the elf’s it’s about blame culture.

We have forwarded facing and side cameras, no problems with them, as they can be used in your defense, as well as guilt, so far been used successfully to show other Muppets on the road,have caused the incidents.and when refusing to go into a drop why because of Hazards.

They are here to stay, it just depends on the company you work for, how they use them.

Yep, like all tools, they can be used well, or badly.
Doesn`t matter if they only face out, or if they the face driver as well, it is how they are used that matters.

99

discoman:

Andrejs:
What problem if you do all correctly.■■? Most bank staff,supermarlet staff work under CCTV ready to many years.

Ok, you buy a new car, and install a dash cam front and rear, why do you think that is… it’s not because of the nice fancy looking camera… it’s to ensure any incidents are recorded…
supermarkets and banks have cameras to 1, ensure theft is kept to a minimum and record staff to stop them stealing … that’s a fact … if your naive to think your employers won’t use driver facing camera against you well then your as naive as Rowley, as mentioned these companies have no lawful right to your image… is it is your employment contract in relation to your image rights being passed on to a 3rd party? …ie insurance company, don’t use the streets and all have cameras if you shop in a supermarket you agree upon entry to use of cctv … however in your employment contract it needs to be shown and also, what they do with the Data and image etc …

Oh that old chestnut I’m naive and lick the bosses arse etc etc etc etc etc etc etc because I’m choosing to take the positives about someone that is here to stay whether we like it or. It’s getting boring now.

As I said, the cameras are here to stay so you can choose to continue getting yourself wound up over them and moan moan moan moan at them or you can accept them for the positives that they offer. Or just go and retire and do something with less responsibility where bosses and insurance companies don’t feel the need to watch you.

100

Trukkertone:
And insurance forms for all the agency damage ■■

Given the number of companies who have it in your contract of employment you’ll pay for damages or pay their excess it would appear it is in fact fulltimers doing the majority of the damage. Agency try to avoid it because it means you’ll not be working there again and you can be told you’re not wanted the same day unlike an employee. Fulltimers appear to care very little about the trucks and how they drive them as can be seen on the various “I don’t pay for the truck or the fuel so why should I care?” posts on trucking groups to the point that many companies will have a bonus they’ll pay you just for not wrecking their motor and walloping through fuel. Quite a damning endictment of the full timer where the company feels it has to bribe their drivers just to do the job half decently.