The Reason Why Carriers are Installing Driver Facing Cameras!

Discussion in 'Trucking Industry Regulations' started by Eddiec, Nov 14, 2022.

  1. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  2. GreenPete359

    GreenPete359 Road Train Member

    2,076
    3,789
    Oct 21, 2017
    Driving my recliner
    0
    The article has nothing to do with it.

    Read the article, the defendant’s trailer was being pulled by another motor carrier. He would have had no ability to install a camera in the tractor that had the accident.

    The owner of the trucking company should have given the load back when his truck broke down, or told the trucking company he gave the load to they needed to us their own trailer.


    **On a side note, cameras are reactive not proactive. All the camera would have done was possibly catch the driver playing with his phone, not that it was needed as it seems to already be a proven fact that him playing with his phone was the cause of the accident.
     
  3. Bakerman

    Bakerman Road Train Member

    4,654
    8,775
    Jan 27, 2013
    Phoenix, AZ
    0
    I read the article, and the first thing that came into my mind was that RCX must’ve had a really bad lawyer.
     
  4. GreenPete359

    GreenPete359 Road Train Member

    2,076
    3,789
    Oct 21, 2017
    Driving my recliner
    0
    Lmao. I agree 100%, but the thing that caught me was they saw About Tyme Transport as a 1099 contractor vs. a brokered common carrier.

    It states in the article that they did not deem RCX as a broker even though what they essentially did was broker the load.
     
    gentleroger Thanks this.
  5. roundhouse

    roundhouse Road Train Member

    2,296
    5,017
    Jul 11, 2018
    0
    It’s not like he has to pay that $6.5 million .
    Once the insurance company pays out the max coverage , the company will get sued for the difference , the company waits until the court issues a judgement , and files bankruptcy ,

    Sells the assets to another company he owns and keeps on trucking with a different name on the door .
     
  6. bryan21384

    bryan21384 Road Train Member

    10,324
    20,257
    Sep 18, 2009
    1918 Anywhere, USA 90210
    0
    The trucker fouled up majorly, but the problem is that he was killed. There has to be a scapegoat. Thats how America works. I guess had he not grown tired of the legal battles, he probably could've turned around and gone after About Tyme Transport. To me, they're liable. I guess the driver facing camera would've shown the driver being distracted but he was killed so that right there was costly to RCX
     
  7. RockinChair

    RockinChair Road Train Member

    It is completely unreasonable to think that RCX should be held responsible for the trailer's operation when the trailer was being pulled by a truck not owned by or leased to RCX. RCX could not have prevented the responsible driver from driving distracted.
     
  8. gentleroger

    gentleroger Road Train Member

    5,684
    13,884
    Jun 1, 2010
    0
    Problem is they didn't set up the paperwork that way. Even if they had, it wouldn't have been legal because RCX wasn't a brokerage.

    "The Plaintiff's attorney proved that RCX Solutions, Inc. did not have a Department of Transportation Broker's license and therefore could not legally broker the load"
    What I don't understand is why they used their own trailer. I get not wanting to "fail" in the Broker's eye, but using your trailer under an interchange agreement is asking for trouble.
     
    GreenPete359 Thanks this.
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  • Draft saved Draft deleted