Driving for Wal Mart....smile 4d camera and Microphone

Exactly. What happens if you just happened to be taking a sip of coffee...or reached over to change the radio station that was fading out...or any number of other "distractions" that happen every day that you don't even think about as being a "distraction"? Perhaps you simply weren't keeping your hands @ 10 & 2 or your eyes weren't scanning your mirrors often enough for the other guy's lawyer to be satisfied that you were paying proper attention to what was going on. Now, instead of the wreck being 100% the fault of the guy who cut you off and hit the brakes, now you're picking up a good chunk of the blame because you weren't focusing your undivided attention on your driving...and they've got the video proof to back up that claim.

 

You guys are paranoid. You act like the car in the frontal video causing whatever crash will be ignored and you chewing gum will be the blame for the accident lol. About the only time all blame maybe placed on you is when that phone is in your hands and something happens. Stop freaking out or go buy your own truck.

 

In a civil case, all that is needed to win is the "preponderance of the evidence"...not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in a criminal trial. That short few seconds before and after won't show you paying attention for hours at a time, just the momentary distraction the instant things went bad. You're insane if you don't think some injury lawyer won't use that to go after you and the company you work for. They'll subpoena any other clips that may have been sent to the company phishing for as many examples of you being "distracted" as they can find in order to sway another juror or two to their side. All they are trying to do is move blame from 100% on their client to finding you partially to blame. Given the medical bills, repair bills, etc...even 20-30% can be a rather large sum of money. Why provide them with that opportunity? The dash cam shows their client 100% at fault, and that is all it takes to clear you of wrongdoing. Adding more camera angles, showing what you may or may not have been doing only muddies up the water, potentially implicating you for partial blame. There is no good reason to do that.

And as for buying my own truck, I did that almost 9 years ago. All that does is delay things, though. I knew a lot of guys who bought trucks when the company I was at went to elogs in the company trucks, because they weren't making the O/O's run them. A couple years later they changed their mind and made their O/O's get them. I left for greener pastures. Now the feds are mandating them. Same with the speed limiters. When I bought my truck, company trucks were @ 70 mph. Shortly after, they were cut back to 64...and again, a lot of guys bought trucks so they could keep running the speed limit. Same groups that are responsible for forcing elogs on the industry also are pushing for speed limiters. They are also starting to put these stupid driver cams in their own trucks...just as they did with the elogs and speed limiters. How long before they start pushing for regulations requiring them in ALL trucks to "level the playing field" since companies without these silly cameras have an easier time recruiting and retaining good drivers? Same formula as they used in the past...make a business decision, realize it places them at a competitive disadvantage, lobby the government to force their bad business decision upon the rest of the industry. Just because I own my own truck doesn't mean I'm exempt from the stupidity...just that it is delayed until the megas have spent enough time & money in DC to get their bullexcrement pushed through the regulatory process.

 

Just because you do something everyday doesn't mean it's not wrong. Some people text and drive everyday. A distraction is a distraction. If you're in bumper to bumper traffic and you're more interested in your coffee or your radio than what's going on around you you're not being falsely accused or maliciously hounded, you're part of the problem.

Personal responsibility and honesty seems to have turned into "Only if you catch me". What a world we live in.


Ed

 

You don't have to be in bumper to bumper traffic for idiots to do stupid things around you. Hell, I rarely see bumper to bumper traffic. You could be the only vehicle on the road for miles around...except for that one guy that just HAS to pull out in front of you knowing he's going to stop to hang a left in 50'. Or have that guy who just HAS to get around you right as he's getting to his exit. $#!+ happens, and you're a #### liar if you're trying to tell me that you've NEVER had even a split second's worth of distraction while driving. Even if you manage to be the shining example of what the perfect driver ought to be 99.9% of the time, it is that 0.1% of the time the opposing lawyer will exploit, and use the video clips of those 0.1% occurrences to make it seem like it represents your level of attention 100% of the time rather than the 0.1%. Appearance is EVERYTHING, and a series of clips showing you doing anything but driving with your full attention to your surroundings is all they need to sway a few more jurors to their side. They don't have to paint the wreck as 100% your fault...only argue that it isn't 100% their client's fault...that YOU bear a chunk of the blame, too. Then, you get to cut them a check.

 

Oh I never claimed I'm perfect. Far from it. I recently had a minor incident happen at 2am. Scraped the back end of a car here in my complex. No damage to my car, very minor paint damage to theirs. It was so close that if the paint had been thinner on either car nothing would have come of it. I could have ignored it but chose honesty instead. We took care of it without getting insurance involved, but I had my info ready if that's the way they wanted to go. What I said was to take personal responsibility. That's all. Don't try to hide that you may be partially to blame.

And they're not going to get a series of clips of you doing anything. The way the cameras are set up, from what I understand, is they only save data when something happens. Unless your company is saving it and not telling you. Granted I'm not sure why they'd offer that up to an opposing attorney unless they wanted to prove you were always reckless, which opens them up to more lawsuits. I don't see that happening.


Ed

 

Hit a pothole while you're changing the radio station. They have a clip. Take a sip of coffee as you hit a dip in the road. They have another clip. Look a little too long in your right mirror as you're passing another truck to see when you're clear and have the lane departure warning trigger another clip as you barely touch the rumble strips. Might take a week and 3500 miles for all three clips to happen. Times the last 6 months. Now an incident happens, and those clips are used to paint you as the world's worst driver, who rarely pays attention while you're driving, and as a result, should be held accountable for your role in the crash. They'll argue that their client, who dove across your nose hard on the brakes to exit from the left lane is a fine, upstanding member of the community and YOUR pattern of inattention behind the wheel was the REAL cause of the wreck, and that you're at least 50% to blame for a wreck Richard Petty would have had a tough time avoiding had he been in your shoes.

Why open the door to that kind of scrutiny and character assassination, when the dash cam by itself shows the other guy 100% to blame?

 

...and taking responsibility for the incident YOU caused is expected, and not at all what we're talking about with the driver-facing cameras. In your example, it would be like you claiming the parked car was partially to blame because they could have parked 6" deeper into the space...and if they had done so, you wouldn't have scraped their car so they own 30% of the blame in the incident. That is what these 1-800-sue-a-trucker attorneys are essentially doing with those driver cam snippits...reducing their clients blame by pushing it off onto the other party.