For those who have mandatory driver facing cameras?

Actually I don't know what you mean, and that is not the same system we use, it doesn't detect hazardous gasses lol

 

He was probably talking about the sound, not the fumes.

Nonsense in any case.

 

That is completely bass-ackwards. The company does not want its employee - or itself - to be found at fault for a crash or liable for damages. To that end, they will review the footage to try to ensure that the driver was doing nothing wrong.

 

In my experience, having had driver facing cameras aimed at me for much of my 22 years of professional driving, no one ever looks at the camera feed in real time. I confirmed this for myself with my current job by putting a sock over the camera for several weeks. Never heard a peep from anyone!

 

They will throw a driver under the bus if something bad happened. For instance looking at a phone before an accident. They also will establish a pattern of bad behavior with it. And keep records of any consulting they had to do with the driver.

Their primary purpose is to try and prove to insurance companies or a court that they tried to train the driver. It’s all about liability

 

It’s not “throwing you under the bus” to hold a driver responsible for looking at their phone while driving.

 

Know of one driver who didn’t care and he triggered the camera while him and his wife were getting it on in the drivers seat. He quit a couple hours later. Was planning to anyways.
Glad I own my own and don’t have to deal with that ####.
Would of loved to been a fly on the wall
When safety director saw that

 

The change we've seen in claims review over the last 10 years has shown an increase in all forms of distracted driving..........but the phone/ipad are at the head of the list.

When a driver is looking at something other than the road/traffic, there is a tendency to hit something.

The trouble with the cameras is that they can be your friend or your worst enemy. The opposing counsel will always try to get access to any camera footage available to add value to their case. I think overall our claims department feels there is positive value for us as an insurance carrier that we are now offering premium credits for those operators that have them.

 

If you can find the driver at fault, and deny the claim, that decreases your overall outlay. Of course you're going to offer a premium credit. Run the numbers overall on how much money you save denying claims, offer a pool of credit that's less than what you saved, and now you just found a way to soak people out of more money.

 

Wow, another TS attorney.

Shows complete lack of knowledge. When was the last time you heard of a third party liability claim denied because of something the driver did? Unless it was purely an "intentional act" we will work the claim, trying to keep overall claim costs as low as possible.

The policy language stipulates our "duty to defend".

Even that idiot on I70 in Colorado that killed a bunch.....got defense and liability protection up to the policy limits......as well as the owner of the power unit.

When a carrier "denies" a claim they bring into the arena the possibility of "unfair claims practices" which typically will increase our potential outlay by 3-5 times depending on the jurisdiction, so when we deny a claim we don't do it willy nilly.....a lot of thought goes into any denial.

IF capable, try actually reading your insurance contract.....and it is a contract....."in consideration of the premium paid" creates the contract.....again read the policy if you can.