Companies currently using driver cameras...

You are correct, they're basically just going for it, and seeing if anyone notices. Up here in Canada, the province of Quebec caught them, I don't know all the specifics, but it was a huge deal and now no Quebec companies record anything as far as I know. I believe WEL in Wisconsin had a big lawsuit over Camera's/Audio, after some sleeper activities were leaked online by some disgruntled safety people. I'm not in safety, so I don't know all the exact details, and my company doesn't record inside or audio, so I don't know exactly how those policies work.

 

Im surprised a lawyer hasn't gone after a class action. Seems like there's money to be made. Also seems theres a shortage of pro-trucker lawyers. Maybe its as simple as drivers not doing anything about it, which i see frequently. The ones i hear crying "everyone has them" are the only ones with the cameras. I always tell them that was their choice!

 

I read the same insurance narrative throughout this thread. Does anyone have proof insurance companies are forcing, offering discounts, and such for cameras? Something other than our safety director said so. I’m just curious.
You know those signs in auto shops that say “Insurance regulations forbid customers in the shop”? Well it’s just not true. I know this for a fact. Those signs are there because they don’t want people in the shop. It’s credited to insurance so there is no one for the customer to argue with.
So if the safety director says the insurance company made us put them in, you have no one to argue with.
Anyway that’s why I’m curious if it really is insurance.

 

Wow! Definitely a YMMV situation for sure. We use Lytx, outward only, no audio. about 100 company trucks (75 sleepers, 20 day cabs, 5 spotters, 12 O/Os these numbers vary occasionally due to supply chain issues right now causing replacement units to be late). Whenever we need footage, the safety director has to contact Lytx with a 5-minute window and the unit number and he'll get the footage sent to him. Aside from that, when a braking alert is triggered by the system (whether by AI avoiding a crash or driver input beyond a certain threshold), the footage from +/- 30 seconds is sent to safety. That's it. We don't employ camera watchers, nor do we pull footage at random.

Most "camera companies" are self-insured. They only have them to avoid any liability for the company and to hang the driver out to dry or prove the other vehicle caused the crash. Anything beyond that is to save on safety bonuses becoming a thing of the past. The companies with actual insurance? The collision avoidance systems give a good discount, but I don't think there is an insurance discount for cameras. Its just smart to have outward-facing systems for protection.

 

Yeah I said long ago it’s about hanging the driver out to dry if necessary. The problem with that plan is lawyers and juries will be saying well you hired the driver, he works for you!

 

Most major private haulers will be incorporating some type of camera system along with a gps system that is capable of recording video in and out of the cab.

 

So now I am currently at RALPHS (Kroger) in Southern California.

They have cameras facing the road and facing me.
I just recently on the 101 north at the Melrose exit saw a bad crash....

the driver of the passenger vehicle on the exit didn't brake, it was dry conditions, clipped the back of an SUV on its left side, flipped around and landed facing traffic after spinning around.

there are 4 lanes plus the exit lane in this section of the 101 frwy...I was in lane 3 as in California trucks are only allowed to use the right 2 lanes by law.

anyway, when the car flipped around it was in my lane which was the #3 lane and I only had a 3-4 second reaction time to either swerve to the left or slam on my brakes.

It was about 1830 on a Thursday and I was traveling at 49 mph....by reaction, you want to slow down to avoid hitting the out of control car, so I slammed on my brakes

the camera inside the tractor is green and when there is a hard brake the camera will tern red to record....they say its only 8 seconds before and 8 seconds after. the camera is a Lytix. per union rules and agreement with the company they can't use the camera for discipline unless its unsafe driving.

Well, I never spoke about it as I slammed on my brakes, then speed up going over the car debree in my lane narrowly missing the crashed car as I passed through the middle of it.

3 days later I was called into the office by the company safety guy to watch the video.

I was given an award for safety that goes into my file for avoiding an accident.

I understand now the ramifications if there was no video and I would have hit the car. Truckers are always at fault it seems no matter what and I get this saves companies lawsuits because people think they have deep pockets and no proof it was not the truck drivers fault.

In this case it worked in my favor as I avoided the accident and continued on with my multi-stop delivery to the grocery stores.

I'm not a fan of the cameras looking at me but it was interesting seeing my reaction on camera before and after the accident. even though the camera does not show the intensity when your in that exact predicament, nonetheless you can see what you could have done a little better to improve for next time.

Accidents happen out of nowhere and you only have a split-second to react. I now feel the camera is your best friend when the cop or company don't believe you because its on camera and was recorded.

I am now speaking from local P&D and working for a company as opposed to over the road and leased to a company.

When I was over the road these past 15 years I had my own dash mounted camera for my protection

 

Good story. I changed my mind about driver facing (and down the road) cameras after seeing that liability was being put on the drivers. I have dash cams in my personal vehicles as well. Another good thing about dash cams is that I can go back and save a phone call audio that I made hands-free... which came in helpful in a disputed conversation I had.

 

I see plenty of precedent against these cameras. What would happen if an apartment owner started announcing to his tenants that they must comply with mandatory tenant-facing cameras so the tenants can be penalized for misuse of apartment complex equipment, and coached on things like not shutting doors too hard, arguing that there's no expectation of privacy because the apartments have windows?

The owner has a right to know if the maintenance issues being reported are due to natural wear and tear or from improper use by the tenant. One might argue that it's different, because no one else is endangered, because of one tenant's use of the apartment, but this is false, apartment fires do happen, drug dealing happens, rapes and other violent crimes, etc.

So, of course I could argue that for the safety and greater good of society and to help protect apartment complex owners' liability, there should be cameras installed in apartments. Especially in kitchen areas to make sure that someone doesn't leave an unattended stove. Also in bathrooms to prevent those unnecessary service calls for improperly used toilets. If my apartment complex has a no-smoking policy, I would want a camera in every room to see if some unkempt tenants are breaking my rules. First strike, I will have the landlord give them some "coaching", second strike will be the final warning, and third strike they will be homeless.

---

On another note, what page of this thread has the most recently updated version of the list? Also, is there a similar thread for companies that don't use driver-facing cameras. A wiki would be better for these sorts of lists by the way.