Companies without cameras in their trucks

Dynamic has forward only. No auto correct systems to help you loose control and die.

 

Now why would I want to learn about a forum as a way to point someone to a list of trucking companies that don't use cameras? The question didn't refer to the forum and neither did my answer. I wasn't referring to finding one on this forum. We both were referring to finding one—anywhere—and I wasn't even the one looking. Now, if I broke some forum rule by posting what I posted, you can tell me what I did "wrong". If I didn't break a rule, then you aren't making any sense.

 

If this is true... Please post the name of that company.

 

I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that a company that spent $150-200k for a new truck and $50k for a trailer would want to monitor what I do with it!

 

Yeah, I like how you think that I'm not concerned about my very life, but you are so worried about your god ###### money. I'm shocked that anyone would want to risk their lives in one of the most dangerous jobs you can do. Nobody shuts down these trucking companies in the winter because of it being unsafe to drive, either. Ever see I-80 in PA during winter months? Again, it's all about money, not even staying alive matters to you people. But just write it all off by blaming drivers for not being safe enough. Well, your truck and trailer are perfectly safe because they aren't moving any more!

 

What actually causes trucks to crash? Has anyone actually taken a look at the statistics?

There has been plenty of study on this. You may have been told that exceeding posted speed limits causes lots of crashes. Actually, exceeding posted speed limits is one of the smallest causes of accidents, while exceeding safe speed for conditions is a moderate cause. You are told that exceeding posted speed limits is dangerous not because it particularly is, but because it's easier to enforce and fine people this way, even with machines enforcing it.

So what actually are the leading causes of trucking accidents, and how many of them have anything to do with camera enforcement? Let's look at the official FMCSA statistics:

Associated Factors
Hundreds of associated factors were collected for each vehicle in each crash. In descending order, the top 10 factors coded for large trucks and their drivers were:

• Brake problems
• Traffic flow interruption (congestion, previous crash)
• Prescription drug use
• Traveling too fast for conditions
• Unfamiliarity with roadway
• Roadway problems
• Required to stop before crash (traffic control device, crosswalk)
• Over-the-counter drug use
• Inadequate surveillance
• Fatigue.

Table 2
Associated Factors Assigned in Large Truck Crashes and Their Relative Risk Importance

Factors Number of Trucks Percent of Total Relative Risk
Vehicle: Brake problems 41,000 29% 2.7
Driver: Traveling too fast for conditions 32,000 23% 7.7
Driver: Unfamiliar with roadway 31,000 22% 2.0
Environment: Roadway problems 29,000 20% 1.5
Driver: Over-the-counter drug use 25,000 17% 1.3
Driver: Inadequate surveillance 20,000 14% 9.3
Driver: Fatigue 18,000 13% 8.0
Driver: Felt under work pressure from carrier 16,000 10% 4.7
Driver: Made illegal maneuver 13,000 9% 26.4
Driver: Inattention 12,000 9% 17.1
Driver: External distraction 11,000 8% 5.1
Vehicle: Tire problems 8,000 6% 2.5
Driver: Following too close 7,000 5% 22.6
Driver: Jackknife 7,000 5% 4.7
Vehicle: Cargo shift 6,000 4% 56.3
Driver: Illness 4,000 3% 34.0
Driver: Internal distraction 3,000 2% 5.8
Driver: Illegal drugs 3,000 2% 1.8
Driver: Alcohol 1,000 1% 5.3

So basically you have 3 of these factors that could, in any way, be associated with a camera.

Exceeding posted speed limits is NOT the same thing as going too fast for conditions! For this reason, you see trucks on the side of the road in Winter and in rain. By far, the most speeding accidents are caused by going faster than conditions allow. Actual exceeding posted speed limit signs doesn't even make the list. Cameras do not tell drivers to slow down in the snow. It's unlikely any significant number of trucking accidents are prevented by militantly enforcing posted speed limits. Many trucks cannot even significantly speed, as they are governed, except in speed-trap situations.

Following too close can be caught by a camera, however not always. Again, failing to add extra room of deteriorating road conditions can make a driver follow too close without the camera catching, and most tailgating accidents by truckers happen that way. Less than half of these 5% of accidents could be prevented by citing a driver with this habit. However, cars often trigger this violation by cutting in front of the truck, then suddenly going slow (perhaps on purpose to try to work insurance money). This causes a hard brake for the trucker.

An illegal maneuver can cause an accident. Cameras rarely catch a trucker do a dangerous improper lane change—which is the main issue referred to in this stat. They frequently catch a rolling stop at a stop sign, which practically never causes an accident, and then they make this sound like a big deal, even if the driver can see a mile each direction. Probably not even one accident per billion incidences is caused by this petty incident, unless the truck goes further than about 4 feet beyond. A truck might even roll a stop sign for safety reasons, such as to avoid clutch grinding and stalling when stopping on an uphill. Such stalling could cause a collision in the intersection from taking too long to clear it.

It's pretty clear that if external-facing cameras are put in trucks for safety, they would barely make a difference. In fact, since they were first put in trucks, accidents and trucking deaths have only increased according to official statistics! What difference there could be, is also probably negated by the increased stress they create for the driver. I drove with a camera for a while, and what I found was that I repeatedly did less-safe things so as to avoid triggering it. For example, instead of a hard brake before a stale light, I would just continue through to run it possibly red, to avoid the trigger. Or I would hold up traffic and make drivers dangerously try to pass me rather than go a little over the speed limit. After a while, avoiding triggering the camera is a bit like walking around in a room trying to avoid touching things that have static shock. It makes you tire faster, and the camera is very distracting.

 

IMHO in today’s litigious society it’s foolish NOT to have a dash cam...Too many billboard lawyers and insurance fraud professionals out there today.
As for companies enforcing certain driving behaviors...Why is it a problem to be required to drive legally and obey speed limits etc?
Isn’t what you’re supposed to be doing in the first place??
As for #At any name you wish?
You are absolutely correct that there are many multiple factors related to crashes of any type.
As for your constant argument about I80 in Pa in the winter....that’s pretty much anywhere in the Winter any more...and I could name reasons for the next month on why
But the reality is...you can drive safely and stay out of trouble All winter everywhere IF you practice proper defense driving behavior and I’ll argue that till the cows come home
As I enter my 47th winter out here

 

Nobody debates whether or not to have a dash camera. It's whether or not your frontward facing camera is broadcasting in real time to the company. Would you also choose to have one in your personal car broadcast in real time to the police station? That would also improve your driving, I'm sure. Back before 1865, we used to get better results out of workers picking cotton by standing over them with a whip. Is this a bad analogy? I don't think so, because the consequences of disobedience are still harsh. People have found that working free of excess supervision enabled America to have a golden age. Maybe they would not choose to be a slave or pick cotton at all if they had other options, and machinery could take their place.

I mentioned PA in the Winter because it was a highly visible example of how driver and truck safety are not the highest priority of either governments or trucking companies, but profits are. The fact that this happens everywhere is hardly an argument against my point.

I like how you reminded me about signs. Billboards are also an example of profits—in this case, marketing—over safety. I've actually seen the studies done to apologize for these distractions, and they are totally bogus, claiming that a billboard is only designed to take your eyes off the road for a fraction of a second. Actually, in order to register business names, phone numbers, and web addresses to memory, and to read several words, billboards are designed to remove driver attention from traffic safety for several seconds at times when accidents can happen. And some billboards flash numerous ads mere seconds apart on the same billboard, while in other places often congested with traffic, many billboards attempt to sell products to drivers, and they probably cause accidents. In San Diego vs Metromail, the city eventually prevailed in at least establishing that there is a right to get rid of these things, so why they're still up is probably evidence that interests in safety are superficial or subject to marketing biases.

Anyway, people can go ahead and get mad at me, but I made my point. Truck driving cameras are probably overall to blame for more accidents in trucks. The data shows an increase in accidents happening since they've been largely implemented. This is probably because competent and experienced drivers do not wish to be employed in a line of work that requires them to be under a watchful eye—whether the company feels the need for this or not. We need garbage collectors too, but simply feeling like you need workers to do unpleasant work doesn't make everyone want to work for you. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this. The job is no longer fun, and it's too potentially litigious. Fault doesn't even enter into it. You can argue that trucking has a shortage of experienced and competent drivers for some other reason. What would that be, considering that there was no shortage 15 years ago when we didn't have trucks with this good of entertainment, atmosphere control, pay, as many home-at-night jobs, and even further back when keeping contact with family was harder? About everything in trucking working conditions today is better than it was when there was no driver shortage at all. There should be even more people trying to drive trucks today, not fewer. What's the one variable? Probably cameras, but nobody will admit it.