Negotiating out of driver facing cameras

I think the problem with driver cameras is that the motions or actions of the driver are open to debate by the party in the suit that is looking to profit, and therefore exposed to a range of arguments. Forward and or forward and side cameras pretty much just tell the truth of the rolling situation.

Why open oneself up to scrutiny necessarily. More than one company has learned just as much. Driver cameras are for companies that don't trust and want to monitor drivers. In a world of liability and litigation, one would have to have little regard for ones own well-being to have a camera on them every moment of driving.

 

Except the Warner case has proven this false.

 

What Werner case?

 

It's hard to argue that the driver was distracted when the driver-facing cam shows that the driver was not wearing a headset and had both hands on the wheel.

 

The point is that a well connected shark of a lawyer will find something at fault with the driver. Did he yawn? Fatigued driving. Were both his hands properly on the wheel at all times? Negligent drivng. Was his radio on? Was it too loud? Did he not check his mirrors enough? Did he check them too much? Did he go over or under the speed limit at any time? Not in control of the truck. Etc etc etc etc etc etc ad nauseum! Forward and side (maybe even rear) are all that needed to protect the carrier. Anything else is flirting with diaster. The court system will bite you hard if you let it.

 

If that’s the case but,,,
What if the driver rubbed his eyes or yawned 30 seconds before the wreck??
Or, adjusted the volume on the radio?

 

Y'all both musta missed the part where I said that the other party crossed the zipper - and was drunk. That combination of facts trumps any perceived wrongdoing by the truck driver.

Also, the company wants their employees to be found not at fault so that they won't be held liable. If the company thought their drivers were doing wrong they wouldn't want cameras to capture that.

 

There was a video on YouTube I believe that caught a driver trying to take off his hoodie while he was driving. He was a part of a team operation. He couldn't get the hoodie the off and he got it stuck over his head. He crashed the truck. So yeah, that's an instance right there where the company is justified in letting him go if they choose.

 

You do realize that doesn't matter to a good lawyer. Right? They'll look at your logs...etc. Find a reason why the truck was to blame. So who "really" was at fault doesn't matter in civil court. Who the lawyer paints as at fault. Is all that matters.

Driver facing cameras are a dual edged sword. The company wants it to prove they are not at fault. Period. Whether that is to show the driver did nothing wrong OR to show that it was the driver's fault. Both eliminate them from wrong doing. Or they at least hope it will.

So you thinking that the driver being drunk and crossed the line trumps everything. Is precious. But not reality. Reality is painted. Not fact.

 

As far as I am concerned, there is no argument here for the driver facing cameras to be acceptable for a self respecting person.
I would give up this profession in a heart beat if I was given an ultimatum of driver faced cameras.
I cannot escape the reflection that allowing yourself to be viewed while driving is the quintessence of becoming a corporate robot. I realize there might be reasons where pride has to be compromised for more important aspects of life, where livelihood takes precedence over anything else but that's exceptionally rare in this industry when someone can't have alternatives.
There is no need for it, in absolute terms, if you have a dash camera facing the road depicting your speed, position, traffic conditions prior to accident. Too fast. Too close. Too slow. Too aggressive. Too chaotic. It's all there In a plain view. They don't need to see your face!
I say, screw those carriers that require them!