Driver Facing Cameras...???

I agree! Them vultures won't have to prove anything ,it will be given to them on a plate.When I think of possible consequences of my actions and the money I get it makes me want to quit right here right now!

 

Are you guys listening to yourselves? You're saying truck drivers who are in a crash generally have something to hide and that DFCams can only work against a driver. So no drivers are driving professionally who are involved in a crash and a DFC can never exonerate a driver where it might be alleged the trucker was driving distracted?

I don't like the idea of DFC either but comments like I've read here pretty much provide all the reason a carrier or a lawmaker would need to mandate them.

With friends and "advocates" like you, who needs enemies?

 

Well,ST,guess what?Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes from time to time.Yes,DFC only works against a driver.You are innocent until PROVEN guilty, remember?( at least in theory this is how it works)

 

Agreed but I'd like to think at least some truck crashes happen where the truck driver was not being a moron at the time and was being professional and a camera could prove this.

But I still stand by my original stance that they are being used more for behavior modification because it's becoming apparent the majority of drivers drive distracted at some point, every day and this is a real and very serious problem. Apparently some are very bad at multitasking.

 

The problem lies in the fact that the system isn't set up to catch you during the 99.999% of the time that you're doing everything right, but rather the 0.001% of the time you aren't. So the plaintiff's attorney takes 6 months worth of the 0.001% of the time you may not have been 100% focused on your driving, and strings those 8-second clips together to make a 4-5 minute presentation of nothing but you screwing up. Congratulations...the jury now hates your guts. The plaintiff's attorney has successfully painted you as a menace to society and a danger to anyone attempting to share the road with you. Even if you did EVERYTHING right in the incident with his client, your "history" of "frequent periods of inattention" will be used against you to win a bigger payday for his client.

 

No defense attorney worth their salt is going to allow access to any video outside of the immediate crash time and I don't think any judge could/would sign a subpoena to access video outside of that time frame.

If this is the case, than all who have a forward facing cameras should think about getting rid of them because we all have moments of driving that we may not be proud of and would not want a safety officer to see. If these are going to be gathered at the crash scene while you're at the hospital, you're not going to be able to deal with it

 

The difference is, the defense attorney will ask for the driver's file. That is going to include log books, communications, dispatch record, disciplinary record, etc...and knowing that the company uses driver facing cams, they are going to ask for that footage as well. DON'T hand it over, and you'll be in court following a motion to compel, and if you STILL refuse, you'll be there again answering a contempt charge. They know the evidence exists, because it is "company policy" to have those cameras. You can't deny that it exists, because even the best drivers in the world WILL occasionally trip the cameras, and that is the footage they seek...and yes, it IS relevent, because it establishes a "pattern of inattentive driving" which will be used to increase the damages awarded to their client.

A personal dash cam is NOT "company policy" , therefore they don't know it exists. If it DOES exist, they don't know what the parameters are, and the company has no control over the footage because it isn't THEIR camera. Mine ONLY saves when I reach up and push the button. I have disabled all of the other possible triggers, so there really wouldn't be anything for me to hand over other than what I had chosen to save. The footage leading up to the crash is what it is, though.

The other big difference? The footage on an outward facing dash cam that hasn't yet been overwritten is going to show the 99.999% good driving, instead of focusing entirely on the 0.001% where you may have been a little distracted...and even then, the driver facing camera is recording you being distracted, where that outward facing camera only shows the rare moments where that 0.001% of the time actually caused the truck to sway within the lane or some other obvious sign of distraction such as running a red light or not realizing traffic was stopped until you had to hard brake to avoid it. Reach for your coffee and hit a pothole, driver cam shows distraction. Forward facing cam (even with g-shock sensor on) shows you driving straight down the road, not weaving, staying in your lane, and hitting a pothole. Driver cam scores a point for the plaintiff. Dash cam the plaintiff comes up empty, because there is no evidence you were doing anything improper.

 

Ah yes, if you don't like being under 24/7 surveillance you must have something to hide! smh

I just want to be alone in my truck.

 

I do too. But if you read some of the responses, you'll get a definite sense many do in fact have something to hide, and that a DFC would convict more than it would exonerate. I just would like for those folks to come up with a different argument against DFC's or keep their opinions to themselves.

 

...and those driver cam videos you don't think ought to be handed over are just as relevant as log book pages from 4-6 months ago. Still have to hand over those log book pages, though...you really think a plaintiff's attorney won't get a judge to agree that the videos from that same time frame ought to be handed over as well? They both are useless and irrelevant to the current situation other than the pattern in your driving that they may establish, which would be argued to be a contributing factor in the incident in question.

I used to say "Hey, if YOU don't mind a company forcing (fill in the blank) on their drivers, have at it!" This whole ELD thing is a game-changer, though, because these companies once they made their own bad business decision and it proved to place them at a competitive disadvantage, instead of owning up to that bad business decision and reversing course, they doubled down...lobbied the government to force their bad business decision onto the entire industry. If the same thing happens with these driver cams, you don't even want to THINK about what it'll do to insurance rates as payouts skyrocket. The big players are willing to take that hit because they can afford it as it knocks out their competition. Much like Walmart coming in and forcing prices down to drive the competition out of business, the megas will do that with costs. Today it is ELD...where installing a stand-alone system with no monthly fees will run me the same as a 36 YEAR supply of paper logs...and compared to the system offerred "free device, free installation" by my carrier (I just have to pay the monthly fee), I'd only save money with the company plan up to the 18th month...then, it would've been cheaper to buy the stand-alone system. Will it last 36 years? Probably not...so costs are guaranteed to be more than they would with paper, with zero ROI.

So they got the ELD...so then they tried for speed limiters. My truck runs as fast as those white signs with the black numbers allows. Time is money, especially in the months and years ahead with an ELD. If I can't run the speed limit, it takes me longer to complete my run, which makes it more likely I need to pay for a motel, which in turn increases the likelihood of needing another motel since the 16 hour exception is only available IF you have started and stopped at the same location on the previous 5 shifts. Money out of my pocket every time I don't make it home. Luckily they failed...for now. I doubt that fight is over yet, though...and then will come the driver cams. They can't keep drivers because most drivers don't want a camera in their face...so they force it onto the industry so you have nowhere else to go. When EVERY company is mandated by the regs to be just as bad to work for as the megas, you'll have no reason to leave them. That and when insurance companies have to pay through the nose on liability claims, rates go up...and the little guy just won't be able to afford that...so even if you WANTED to go elsewhere, there won't be an elsewhere to go.