Camera's are coming to a truck near you or Yours.

Johan,

Once the up front costs of the cameras are covered, it is just the costs of transmitting the data and people to monitor it.

It's not over the air video, it is simply a file being downloaded.
It's already compressed into an MPEG file, so it's not streaming live uncompressed video which would have a much higher data usage.
Each file is only a few megabytes.

Your point about bunk curtains is a good one. You're right, they can't see through them. They would need multiple cameras in different locations to cover every place.
Not very practical, I admit.

But about wanting to watch a drivers habits in rush hour traffic, or in any heavy traffic condition or construction zones..., they actually SHOULD and DO want to see that.
Swift employs independent people to drive around and film Swift drivers in those conditions. How much cheaper would it be to have the ability to simply download a few files?
And they could cover the entire fleet, instead of just a handful of drivers per month.

That is your 'measurable benefit' to installing dash cams with Qualcom connectivity.
And since the QC has GPS it would not be difficult to include other information, like current speed, in the text display.

Instead of paying thousands of dollars each month for a few random videos by a few people of a few drivers, they could spend the same amount for the ability to see it first hand from any truck at any time.
Instead of being able to monitor 100 drivers per month for a few minutes each, they could monitor thousands of drivers for as long as they wish.

One person viewing a 3 minute video could observe 15 drivers per hour easily. That would be 360 per day, 10,800 per month, if it were done 24 hours a day.
And that is with only ONE person working during each 8 hour shift.
Add a few more people and the entire fleet could be covered multiple times each month.

You could create a program for the QC to send a file whenever certain conditions are met, like being in a city during certain hours of the day.


You opened the can of worms, and now I'm just brainstorming trying to sort the worms.
But do you really think that it would not be possible, or cost effective?

 

There are serious legal implications to an employer having "on demand" video, as opposed to an event-triggered capture. An employer may well be able to justify a forward-facing camera; it doesn't "see" anything that can't be seen from outside the vehicle. Justifying an interior camera will be a MUCH harder sell.

As for audio... not going to happen. Already prohibited by law in many places, Pennsylvania being one of them; not even an event-triggered audio recording is permitted. Besides, an audio recording of my truck will reveal that I listen to netcasts. Computers, guns, ham radio... and the No Agenda show. In The Morning!

 

One signature on a consent form makes any and all legal implications go away. The drivers that refuse to sign can go elsewhere and neither party will lose an ounce of sleep over it.

 

Yes I really think its not cost effective. Because that warm body that you have to pay and insure is going watch randomly downloaded video clips of drivers in rush hour traffic 8 hours a day and 99% of what they watch will result in no action being taken. Swift is a public company, there are share holders to answer to.

How are the share holders going to feel about spending the money to have a system which doesn't currently exist custom built and installed in every truck, increasing the current bandwidth bills by 10 fold and hiring an army of full time people you'll need to pay and insure who will collectively produce no meaningful result 99% of the time? Especially when they can instead install a system which already exists at a much lower cost that only captures video when an actual event happens thereby paying people to watch video only when they know there is a very good chance of seeing something important.

Which option do you think the share holders are going to feel is the better choice for profitability?

 

That's it? So, you can't point to any driver facing video that proved a drivers innocence?

Go back and read your post. You made it sound like there are hours of video on youtube of this stuff or something.

 

There is nothing in post #207 to suggest I meant there was hours of that stuff available on youtube. I said according to what I've seen and heard. I have business relationships with people from companies that happen to use those systems.

 

It's not that easy. An employer can't make you waive your rights as a condition of employment. Many have tried, and lost big for their attempt.

 

at will employment. You don't want sign? No problem. Looks like we don't have positions available available for you right now. We'll call you when we do.

 

Which is illegal, and that company will find themselves on the losing side of a very expensive class action lawsuit.

 

Your misinformed, The company I spent the last 10 years with put cameras in all the trucks. First they got eveybody to sin a release to be recorded said they were going to install cameras in the lot ans bldgs, which they did. The way the release was written states on or in company grounds, bldgs, and vehicles.

A couple of months later they added them to the tractors when we all complained were told stright up theres he door. Go if you want, out of 80 drivers 2 quit.

The cameras record all the time in 3 minutes segments, if an event is truggered it is flaged for 2 reasons, 1 does not get overwritten, 2 keeps safety have having to view hundreds of hours of video. these cameras had cards marked 64 but would hold 168 hours of video.

When I rolled my truck in December safety did not writ me up because the camera did nt show me doing anything wrong. Bottom line I quit because they refused to show me the video.