For those who have mandatory driver facing cameras?

Sap=substance abuse program

 

Do you have any statistics to back up this claim? Or is it something you were told?
All statistics I've seen from official sources show that ever since cameras have been introduced into tractor-trailer trucks, accident rates industry-wide have INCREASED.

This includes death rates, too.

As of the date of your post, a valid sample group of companies hiring drivers and not using cameras on them would have been almost impossible to make. This is because of 1. A lack of a stable history and proportion of the two sample groups. 2. Too much difference in the kinds of vehicles and work done in them (eg class A with cameras and class B often without them), and 3. The effects of covid and other environmental variables. Also, cell phones were in use long before cameras were introduced to trucks. Actually, right before cameras were introduced, trucking had its lowest rate of deaths per year EVER. Those rates have done nothing but go up since then, although during covid it was hard to say why.

Too many people just believe stuff for no better reason than someone pulled it out of their *** or that it sounds good to an insurance salesman. If you know something well enough to assert it as fact, you should know it well enough to source it.

Cell phones with texting were introduced over a decade earlier. Rates continued to go down even during widespread use and development of cell phones and texting, although I doubt if the phones were responsible for that. Probably they hurt accident rates, but in trucks, probably not as much as alleged. Mostly in cars.

I've made this point before. A statistic needs a lot of explanation. Even my assertion is only a theory. But I propose the reason why: cameras are among the top reason why experienced drivers (who get into the least accidents) have been driven out of the industry, only to be replaced by an endless vicious circle of disposable new drivers. These new drivers are constantly caught doing camera violations, so the cameras look like they're doing something useful, when all along, everyone is ignoring the big picture. TRUCKING ACCIDENT TRENDS.

Insurance companies like to use the nature of the trucking job as a scapegoat. Long hours, cell phone usage, drugs and drinking. Also they claim people don't want to drive trucks. In fact, all of these factors have been relevant for a long time prior to the use of cameras. Trucks and trucking routes are more, not less, conducive to driver convenience today than they ever have been before with better AC, entertainment, daily and weekly home routes, better pay, and communications with family. The only real variable that could be actually driving out good drivers is...cameras.

Certainly, if the cameras were so great, the rate would at least have stabilized—not gone up. Go ahead and talk about truckers as if they all have this secret desire to break the law just for the heck of it, and see where that gets you.

 

yeh its a slippery slope I'm not keen on for anyone

Just wonder how the office staff would appreciate a camera in every room keeping them safe and productive. Only business calls, no coffee at desk, no radios, no turning away from the computer screen for less than 1 second. No walking around talking crap to other staff. No long toilet breaks, no smoking, just 8 hr of pure safe production.

 

Probably alot shorter list of companies that don't have driver facing cameras.

 

No, I don't. Based on context clues from a two year old post, it was probably just my opinion saying his claim sounded legit, and I didn't doubt it.

Now I expect numbers increased because at the same time cameras are being widely adopted, there was probably also an influx of puppy mill "drivers" helping pump those numbers up.

Honestly, I don't have a dog in the fight. I run my own numbers.

 

You don’t video yourself during the day?

 

Yeah, but it's a side gig.

 

Can you post any sources you are implying with this opinion?

Cause I am not believing this to be true at all. If it was true, then the due diligence of insurance companies would be getting the cameras back "out" of the trucks, not an increase in using them.

One thing cameras create a problem with, and I don't understand why they are being used at all for this reason, is when a driver is actually at fault of doing something wrong in the cab especially in fatalities and this footage can now prove this. Those videos can be subpoenaed by attorneys for plaintiffs and actually become a source for them to prove their cases that a driver was at fault if there are inward facing cameras, which has and does happen. From this perspective alone, I don't understand why companies are installing these cameras even more today...

Unless of course the due diligence shows that drivers are "not" at fault even more than they are being found to be at fault, and it is actually saving companies money in the long run based on these cases. If what you are saying or what I just stated was true and hurting business and/or insurance companies, there is no way this technology would be being deployed even more. No way. It's just a game of numbers to all them and if it's saving them money in lawsuits and/or less accidents in the long run in cases, then that can be the only reason I could understand why it's becoming even more common to install these cameras.

Let's face it, companies are not going to pay for all these upfront costs of technology just to keep the general public safer, and insurance companies are not going to push to have these cameras installed unless somehow it does actually reduce accidents and saves them money in pay outs in the long run.

If what you are saying was and is true, then you would see a reverse in this technology being deployed not an increase at all.

So what and where EXACTLY are you basing this information from. Provide sources please.

I have even heard companies try to pitch to me that the cameras are installed to save our butts as drivers in trying to warm you up to them using the technology. This is actually not true at all. Companies don't care about saving our butts, but care about saving themselves from lawsuits. Anyone that tells you anything different is lying.

And for the record, I am not a fan of them at all, and won't accept a job utilizing them. I have turned down several jobs in the last few months because they are using these cameras. It opens the door for even more big brother stuff being used on drivers as they go. A.I. cameras are already being used and this technology is going to get even harder, more stricter, and more in control because drivers are settling for the current technology and becoming desensitized to it.

They already have technology in A.I. cameras that are now sending alerts based on scanning your eyes and seeing how often you scan your mirrors and how often you are yawning. I was told when applying for a Fed-Ex driver position a while ago that Fed-Ex was moving to cameras that would shut the trucks down if you were yawning too much on their last mile trucks. I am strongly against this technology and think drivers overall should stay clear of it.

The other selling point is that only "events" get sent to your company/safety officer when something is actually "triggered" like sudden stops or the like. This is partially true, but not the real picture. Most cameras are monitored by a third party company who will send the triggered events to your company when something happens. They send a recording of 8-10 seconds before, during, and after an event. Companies will even tell you that they can't look in on your and see what you are doing at will and they "only" see triggered events.

What they don't tell you is that you are being recorded 24-48 hours at a time and that's both audio and video. The independent 3rd party companies can view and/or see this data any time they want. The footage is usually run on 24-48 hour loops and then copies over itself if there are not triggered alerts. But the independent 3rd party company has access to that raw data any time they want, not the actual company they are installed in. All of this includes during your personal time off when and if the truck is running, unless you have an override function in your truck for the camera when you are on personal time. For those that think covering the camera in their off time is suffice, you should know that audio is still being recorded while the camera is covered.

If you think 3rd party companies that are running this technology is not auditing some or much of that video for any reasons, then I have a bridge I want to sell you. That would be valuable information for independent research reasons and probably for many reasons that I am not smart enough to think of for all types of folks out there, especially insurance companies. There is no way I would believe that they are not tapping into that data for any type of research reasons on what drivers are doing as a norm for future products, psychology, or even laws.

So in theory, you are a Guinea pig one way or another if those cameras are installed in your truck and if you think nobody is looking at you at some point outside of triggered events, you are completely wrong.

 

Not just office staff....but put one on every desk of the CEO's of every company, especially megas, and give the option for all of us to peak in on them at any time, and you would see these things cease to exist. If you want to take it a step further, put them in all the CEO's and their family members personal cars with the same options and you would also see these things cease being used.