Driver facing cameras reduced preventable accidents by 25% a JB Hunt
Posted by Armchair-Attorney@reddit | Truckers | View on Reddit | 223 comments
Heard this stat at Freightwaves’ F3 conference this morning. I know driver facing cameras are controversial. What do you all think about that?
taco-force@reddit
I think they are a product being sold to executives looking to cut costs. It's really hard to trust the data when the financial incentives are so clear.
Personally it's an insane invasion of privacy, I've had driver facing camera data used against me to while I was in training. Luckily my company got rid of them and I'll never drive for a company that uses them. The companies aren't your friends, anything thing you say or do can and will be used against you.
Do your part and refuse to drive for these companies as well.
bigdrop@reddit
When asked I'll pay you more if x almost everyone would take the pay in exchange for x. When serious accidents happen it's no longer the drivers decision as to what happens as a result. Truck drivers can and will say anything to avoid accountability. If there's a fatal accident and a driver facing camera would save you from prison every sane driver would take the camera. If a jury has to make a decision I'd rather have the camera back up my words.
taco-force@reddit
It's not getting into a fatal accident that saves you. It actually is that easy. People have been doing it for a long time now. If you can't drive without big brother watching you blink, get out of the truck.
seang239@reddit
It’s not the driver facing camera that saves you, it’s the outward facing camera that saves you. Having a cute little close up video of you doing absolutely nothing with no context to the outside world isn’t going to help you in any way.
An outward facing camera that shows you weren’t speeding and you stayed in your lane and it was the other car who was speeding and shot across 6 lanes of traffic to hit you, will.
bigdrop@reddit
Video isn't human eyes. Human eyes can see and testify to things that never happened. Video doesn't lie. However, in your defense, I think there was a mega carrier a few years back (maybe england or prime) that did have inward facing cameras and they took them away basically because it was better for business to have the vagueness of not knowing exactly what the driver was doing and gave the company more room to argue in the companies favor. In plain english, the company made more money not having inward facing cameras because drivers suck. In the end, what you or I think is probably pointless. If the data and the insurance actuary tables show cameras help it's only going to take someone in congress with a "inward facing camera company" executive in their district to push through some law.
seang239@reddit
Testifying that a driver swerved and hit you because he wasn’t paying attention is immediately discredited if the outward camera shows the truck wasn’t speeding and never left its lane. Testifying doesn’t beat video evidence.
Alternatively, if all you have is a driver camera angle, you’re screwed. Why? Because even if the video shows you weren’t touching or distracted by anything in your truck, with your hands at 10 & 2 and eyes forward, it still doesn’t rule out that you started daydreaming and drifting, which would also look exactly like a person driving normally from the inside.
I’m really trying to find a way that a driver facing camera can help, but I really can’t find a single instance of it helping a driver, or the company for that matter, it only screws them. Unless you have an outward facing camera to cover it up. It’s the outward facing every time for the win.
How are these companies, especially company drivers in company trucks, not worried about getting railroaded the first time a lawyer happens to find a truck accident that the outward camera wasn’t functioning for some reason? No matter what the inside looks like, it won’t help them. I kinda believe that’s what’s happening when the case gets dropped because they have video. One of these times something won’t be saved or recorded and they’re going to lose, big time.
It’s going to happen, watch.
Losalou52@reddit
My insurance carrier is pushing them extremely hard. Likely to be mandatory from them sooner than later. Better get used to it because it’s coming.
seang239@reddit
This is like saying talking to cops helps you. There’s zero chance a driver facing camera helps you. Why? Because they have to prove you did something wrong. Giving them video seals your fate.
Any_Shopping1633@reddit
Have you ever been in an accident that resulted in a lawsuit?
seang239@reddit
Yes. Discovery was worded to preserve all video. They don’t care so much about the outward facing, it shows what it shows and that’s it. But, that inward facing can show all kinds of stuff for hours leading up to an accident. Fatigue, distractions, otc meds you took that might interact with that bucket of soda you drank etc etc.
snarksneeze@reddit
I don't think they were acting like the driver facing cams were reducing false claims, I think they meant that overall accidents were reduced because drivers being personally recorded were more careful and this resulted in fewer accidents.
FehdmanKhassad@reddit
you know what would make us all more careful still? if we all had a personal T-1000 monitor us 24 hours a day.
snarksneeze@reddit
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
seang239@reddit
Yea, that’s likely the result of having an alert sent for driving behavior irrespective of having a driver facing camera.
Forward facing is more than enough to see what happened. I’d argue if you took away the forward facing camera, and only had the driver facing camera, they wouldn’t have any information to run on with alerts. They literally have to use the forward facing camera to see what’s going on with an alert. That’s how pointless the driver facing camera is.
driverman42@reddit
Yes. What's your point?
Agamemnon323@reddit
It only seals your fate if you actually did something wrong.
Testimony is considered proof in court if it’s believable. All it takes is someone saying “he was distracted” if it’s believed.
seang239@reddit
Follow anybody for 100 miles and they’ll get a ticket. You trust having a lawyer after your skin to review the previous 24 hours of your driving just looking for anything they can sue you for?
JxC24@reddit
That’s not how those cameras work. They record over themselves after a certain period, so they don’t even have 24 hours worth of footage.
seang239@reddit
Every camera I’ve ever seen has different specs and features that differentiate each model.
Mighty wide brush you’re trying to paint with here saying cameras don’t have 24 hour recording capability.
JxC24@reddit
I mean it depends on the company. I’m sure mega carriers, for example, have a lot of better things to do than sift through weeks of driver footage to try to pull a “gotcha” on a driver.
seang239@reddit
I’m not aware of anyone claiming they do that.
Agamemnon323@reddit
Maybe how you drive.
Why would your company give over 24 hours worth of footage? That’s not how discovery works. And yeah they can look all they want.
seang239@reddit
Ok, seems I’ve found the only human on the planet who doesn’t make a mistake and is perfect.
If you have a driver facing camera and you delete even 1 second of that video, a lawyer will eat it up and sow doubt that you’re hiding something whether you are or not.
If you think a lawyer looking to sue you for a payday isn’t gonna ask for all video, you’re crazy. Asking for abbreviated video only serves to reduce the amount of dirt they can find to sue you for. They won’t be doing that.
As of today, I’m not aware of any laws on the books that say when you get in an accident, you only have to produce 1 min of the driver facing camera. If you get caught up in something, they’re going to ask for all of it. Make sure you have the smallest sd card possible in your camera.
You have a good night and I truly hope you don’t find out firsthand how hungry lawyers can get.
DaniDisco@reddit
It's called discretion.
Every truck can be pulled into a weigh station and 99% of the time, a DOT officer can find something to cite you on.
Same with police officers - if they follow you long enough, they can find a reason to stop you.
They have all the discretion in the world while you will have none.
Would you have a problem with government cameras posted at every intersection in the country, including neighborhoods and recreational areas?
StonedTrucker@reddit
Better not ever look in the mirrors or sneeze. I'll end up in jail for being distracted. Good thing I'm a robot and never need to do any human activities!
Onzaylis@reddit
In civil court (lawsuit) you don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a judgement awarding payment. You just have to prove it was sufficiently probable that the accused/defendant was at fault/caused damages. Video evidence can serve to exonerate you in a civil case or reduce your share of responsibility.
I fucking hate the things, but I absolutely get it, and one seen this exact for of scenario play out in uber cases before.
seang239@reddit
Apples to oranges. It’s the outward facing cameras that make or break an incident, not the driver facing camera.
If you’re carrying paying passengers in the cab like an Uber, obviously in cab cameras would be necessary.
Onzaylis@reddit
Not apples to Oranges, that's just how civil court works. I'm facing cameras can show that you, the driver, were being attentive. Drivers have and will get screwed on "witness testimony" that they were tired, distracted, on their phone, not checking mirrors. An inward facing camera can discredit a witness and win the case. They could also damn the driver if they were actually at fault.
And back to OPs original statement, perhaps knowing you're being monitored might make you less likely to do things you shouldn't be doing.
Again, I don't like it. I don't want it. But I absolutely understand why it's happening. And we need to be intellectually honest when talking about it.
Any_Shopping1633@reddit
This is exactly right.
seang239@reddit
All of that is covered by outward facing cameras only. If you took away the outward facing camera and only have a driver facing camera, it wouldn’t help you in any of those situations. That’s why it’s apples to oranges. Interior view vs exterior view. Exterior is the one that proves something did or didn’t happen.
Not to mention the uber. If you’re using a truck for uber, you need more than just an interior camera.
Onzaylis@reddit
Outwards facing camera doesn't show the driver at all. It literally can't show their attention, can't show then checking mirrors, can't show if they've got a pigging on their hands. I've seen cases with uber where the driver was accused on being on the phone by someone who pulled out in front of the driver. The plaintiff was making the argument that the uber driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, but was distracted on their phone. A driver facing camera showed that they weren't on their phone and killed that argument.
seang239@reddit
If you crossed the lines, you’re distracted. Outward facing proves you did or didn’t cross the lines.
Conversely, you can be staring straight ahead doing absolutely nothing and start to daydream causing you to cross the lines. Still distracted. Still only shown by external view.
Did a car hit you but claim you hit them? Outward proves you did or didn’t hit them or they hit you.
I can’t think of a single example where the outward view isn’t able to show they did or didn’t do something.
I can’t think of a single example where having only a driver facing view would have any impact at all without an outward facing camera proving at fault or not at fault.
If you could give me an example where the driver facing camera is required to show an at fault incident, or the driver facing camera can show you not at fault, I’m all ears.
Every example you gave above is only proven by outward facing camera only.
Onzaylis@reddit
I already have you the example. When witness testimony is proven wrong by camera view. Witness says driver on phone. Camera shows driver NOT on phone. Camera wins. Witnesses tend to go against drivers, and lawyers are real good at convincing juries to trust dubious witness statements. A Camera can absolutely prove a witness wrong.
taco-force@reddit
The company needs better lawyers then, that's a different problem and probably cheaper than monitor cameras for the fleet. However, this is an absolutely assine line of thinking, the driver cameras are going to be used against you any time that there is an incident, probably because you caused or could have avoided the incident. CDL professional drivers already have a higher burden under law to be safe and attentive, you will be held accountable driver camera or not for getting into situations you shouldn't be in.
seang239@reddit
Care to explain how that proves fault? Did it show how the driver either did or did not leave his lane? Having a video of him not using his phone doesn’t show anything with regard to what his vehicle was or wasn’t doing as far as I can tell.
UncleFlip@reddit
I had a video get a driver out of a ticket.
That said, we have fired drivers for what we have seen on video as well.
Double edge sword.
snarksneeze@reddit
Was it the driver facing part, or the road facing part of the video that got them out of the ticket?
UncleFlip@reddit
Both really
Training-Cash767@reddit
Not really, driver. The larger companies are looking to push that liability down on the drivers head. You have and accident, and the company will lay the evidence on the table, throw their hands up, and say, 'Here is what the driver did, it's not our fault!' IMO
seang239@reddit
Company internal use, absolutely. What you said is the only conceivable reason they’d ever want driver cams.
I’m not so sure about throwing you under the bus to a 3rd party though. If you’re an employee in a company truck, well, they’re liable for anything/everything you do. Contractor? Not so much. There’s a liability difference between an employee driving company trucks and a contractor driving their own truck.
I will say this though, if I set foot in a cab with a driver cam, I’ll be making sure I’ve read all the legal fine print and possibly have a separate, personal, liability policy just to be sure.
This has the feelings of new tech that hasn’t been fully exploited yet. It won’t take more than a lawsuit or 2 costing the big boys a few commas and I have a feeling those driver cams will become a thing of the past. At least in the form they’re in now.
CobraWasTaken@reddit
The company can and will use this to avoid liability in accidents. If you took a drink while you were driving the company can say "ah, see, drinking or eating while driving is against our policy so we're not liable".
bomm78@reddit
Driver facing camera footage isn’t going to help a driver in an accident. Why? Because the accident still happened and regardless of what that driver was doing in the cab, attentive or not…the driver was still involved in the accident and that’s how it’ll be viewed in the court system.
Opietatlor@reddit
Bingo it's exactly the same as the drug test. The reason they do it so the insurance companies don't have to pay. They can just turn around and blame it on you. Even if it's been 44 days since you smoked a joint. If you test positive the insurance company can throw up their hands and let you get sued.
Opposite-Swim6040@reddit
Information from the driver camera will rarely be beneficial to the driver. They reached for their coffee, distracted. They reached for a sandwich, distracted. They checked their mirror too long, distracted. Any information too help exonerate a driver can be found in the computer, when they started breaking, how hard was the application, speed etc all found in the ECM. Driver facing cameras only provide information that can hurt.
Creepy-Internet6652@reddit
Yep always go to court with "Reasonable Doubt" .Cameras are " Matter of Fact' which leave know doubt...Trucking Companies are ran by some Dumb MotheFuckers!!
Valac_@reddit
This is why i have them.
taco-force@reddit
Is this from the same people that said driverless trucks were right around the corner? I ain't getting used to shit dude and if there were more people that gave a damn about their privacy and freedom they wouldn't be able to find drivers. Feel powerless, be powerless.
Our union vote failed in 2020 but it's going to be coming back as soon as they start pushing those driver facing cameras.
Losalou52@reddit
Great West Casualty. They are one of the largest trucking insurers. They have pushed it 3 years in a row, more aggressively each time. I’m not supporting it, but every day they are being put in more and more trucks.
tractorferret@reddit
We have great west casualty and I’m part of the safety committee at work. I asked the safety guy about driver facing cameras and he said absolutely not, he didn’t want to see any of our ugly faces. The company owners are also completely against it. They are willing to pay a larger premium to not have driver facing cameras. The trade off is that the speed governor is now at 68, down from 75. I’ll take that trade off.
csimonson@reddit
That's my insurer, haven't heard shit from them about dashcams, inward or outward facing.
starcoll3ctor@reddit
Front facing is fine. But not recording drivers face. This is yet another example of something that as a society we don't have to allow it to become mandated if we don't want. We do own the country after all.
Randorini@reddit
Yeah, these guys that just lay down and accept it are pathetic. They keep saying, oh you will have them soon too, guarantee you I never will, even if they do mandate them, I just won't drive anymore
Fluffy-Caterpillar49@reddit
What company? I'm looking for a company with no driver facing cameras
PlasmaStones@reddit
What they are trying to say is cameras reduce the companies insurance claims by 25%
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
Except i highly doubt the cameras are the only change that's occured in that time frame.
So even that probably isn't accurate.
taco-force@reddit
It's all just a marketing to the C-class marks. Grifters grifting grifters all the way down.
taco-force@reddit
And the camera company only charges 18% of that savings! What a net gain!
LegitimateImpress336@reddit
BanDriverFacingCameras !!!!!!!
mike-2129@reddit
I was in an accident earlier this year. Pickup turned in front of me I couldn't stop and I smashed into them going around 70mph. Everyone lived thankfully. All 3 of us went to the hospital. I have only an out facing camera. They tried to sue me. But the camera footage and police report was enough to make them back out. I'm now not so anti camera. But the footage of myself was not necessary. And I'm not sure in what situation it would be. Just my take. But. I think 25% is a crazy number and it's not the camera doing it's job. I think they probably just cleaned house a bit.
taco-force@reddit
Outward facing cameras are totally legitimate. It's inwards facing cameras that should make every driver's blood boil.
majinspy@reddit
Everybody wants cameras on the other guy.
I work in the office - my experience dovetails exactly with the data from this post. We catch so much unsafe behavior and can intervene before that driver's bad habits catch up to them. People don't even know they have bad habits till we point it out.
Also, a GIANT drop in post-accident explanations of "a deer/car/bike/bus full of nuns came out of nowhere so I had to go into that ditch!" Uh huh...
We've caught people letting other people drive the truck. We think it was his brother but whoever it was, he didn't work for us. He tried to obscure the camera but did so poorly. 🤷
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
Not a single example you gave, or could give, would justify inward cameras.
Yall are some dense ones around here trying to use exterior camera pros as interior ones.
Interior cameras are liability shields for insurance first, the company second, and the driver never.
majinspy@reddit
Exterior camera shows no deer. Interior camera shows....driver nodding off.
You left out the prevention aspect. We can identify and intervene with drivers who have bad habits. We can nip them in the bud before the luck runs out.
seang239@reddit
You’re not blocked.
My thing about the inward camera is it screws everyone over once a lawyer gets an accident and for whatever reason the outward facing camera didn’t record. Yea, sometimes, if the driver does something stupid, even the outward camera won’t save them.
I get the prevention aspect, I do. But there’s a huge liability aspect being created for a marginal, if any, change due to the camera. I’d be willing to bet an outward facing camera that sends alert triggers would have the same effect as a driver facing camera, without the additional liability issues.
On an inward camera, even if you have your hands at 10 & 2 with eyes forward, that still doesn’t rule out that you started daydreaming and drifting. It would look the exact same as a driver who isn’t touching anything in the truck, and who’s watching the road. Inward facing doesn’t have the power to help even if you look perfect while driving, they can only hurt you.
I think lawyers know this. That’s why they drop their cases once they find outward facing video. They’re waiting to catch a case that, for whatever reason, there’s no outward facing video. Throw in a driver facing camera and you’ve just sweetened the odds that you’ll lose.
seang239@reddit
I’d be willing to bet an edgy nervous driver, especially a new one who knows they’re being watched, isn’t as safe a driver as they would be if they weren’t strung up and worried about every little thing they do.
taco-force@reddit
Maybe they should have cameras on you at all times when you work? Catch your bad habits that make you unproductive, cost the company a few extra dollars of your labor. Don't say 'everyone' because I don't want cameras on you or me.
majinspy@reddit
My internet use is absolutely tracked as is every metric related to productivity, safety, etc. All phone calls are recorded. Since the job is entirely computer and phone based, tracking those is more efficient than a camera which would just see me talking and/or clicking.
taco-force@reddit
But is your face tracked? Are your eye movements calculated? Do you have a microphone hooked up to you at all times, phone or not? These are used as devices of intimidation, not efficiency. They sold to companies to cut costs, therefore more profits, and do you think we see that in our paychecks? We're not tools and no other American professional would stand for this level of scrutiny.
Rubes2525@reddit
Maybe don't hire failures then? Maybe you can only get failures because the actual good drivers don't like working for a company that invades their privacy.
majinspy@reddit
People don't have "failure" written on their foreheads. Also, people can learn from mistakes. We'd rather that mistake be "We saw you were distracted here," and not "Why did you hit that light pole and what's it like having a fractured jaw?"
3579@reddit
yeah all the drivers who shouldn't have been driving were weeded out quickly. pretty sure that is called selection bias. its the 80/20 rule. 80% of the problems are caused by 20% of the drivers, it holds true to almost all studies.
Turbulent-Pay1150@reddit
If it helps you weed out the 20% who shouldn’t be driving to have a driver facing camera it will be well worth it - and become the norm. There may be some collateral damage but that 20% is probably where 80% of accidents/claims comes from.
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
Except for the increased liability in crashes involving good drivers who didn't actually do anything wrong, but the lawyer spun a good poor me story about how your driver took risks adjusting his radio, talking on the phone, or taking a drink, and had he not, he'd probably have been able to stop quicker and wouldn't have hit their client and killed a child when they cut your driver off.
You don't give people ammo to use against you, particularly in civil court, especially in this day and age.
Werners been struggling with a 90 million dollar suit for 10 years, had they been dumb enough to have a camera on that driver and he'd have done any number of mundane things, or used advil/energy drinks prior to the crash, or anything of that nature, they'd probably have made out even worse than they already are with evidence that they and the driver didn't do anything wrong.
Turbulent-Pay1150@reddit
Ummm reread what you wrote. Your except for bad driver being proven to have done stupid things by the driver facing cam is not the excuse you think it is. I understand not giving the opposition a stick to beat you with but the use case for the companies and insurers is to remove the drivers who are exhibiting negligent behavior before the kid is killed at least in part to the drivers negligence. An ounce of prevention is the theory.
seang239@reddit
Then why aren’t they saying that? Instead, they’re trying to use the pros from outward facing cameras and apply them to driver facing cameras.
It’s lies all the way down apparently. I totally understand these seasoned drivers with good records avoiding your company like the plague with this attitude. Enjoy having desperate people who are on edge worried about their job flying down the highway on your dime.
derekschroer@reddit
Outward facing cameras can pickup reflections in the windshield anyway, if positioned correctly. Our safety guy has had to fire people for being on their phone because it caught a reflection of the screen.
HeywoodJaBlowMe123@reddit
Where was this at? Texas?
mike-2129@reddit
Yeah a few miles south of sealy. Highway 36.
HeywoodJaBlowMe123@reddit
I figured it’d be Texas. Lol.
That pickup should have known better. You live in Texas, you encounter trucks the most out of any state. Trying to sue you because you didn’t stop on a dime is crazy.
Auquaholic@reddit
What purpose does the audio have?
seang239@reddit
They haven’t thought of that lie yet.
Eastern_East_96@reddit
Nah, not for me. If a company I worked for every threw one in there, I'm quitting on the spot.
For me personally, if they are going to keep me on the road 3 weeks a month, that is basically my apartment, my residence. If drivers had the ability to turn them off when they're parked, I would feel a little more comfortable but them running 24/7 is a joke.
Hat-McCullough@reddit
My company recently launched “privacy mode” which disables the inward facing camera when the vehicle is parked.
Also if there is an incident that didn’t trigger the event recording to be saved, there’s 1-2 people in a company of 50k+ employees that can go back to a specific time stamp to try to review it. Even then, they can only see the outward facing footage within the last 24 hours.
seang239@reddit
Mhmm.
Any_Shopping1633@reddit
This is paranoia. There is no reason to record you while the truck is parked. Why would they fill up the data storage with video of you snoring???
Kiiaru@reddit
You don't record when the truck is parked? That sounds like a security gap. Guess you'll never know who took off your front bumper while you were out of the truck
Any_Shopping1633@reddit
Its not a security camera. It's meant to record your driving.
Kiiaru@reddit
... Record your driving for...? Liability, yes thank you for taking the long way around the barn and coming to the reasonable conclusion that the camera will be recording every movement it detects like a security camera does.
I have one in my truck right now and my company can pull up the last 120 hours, not just the time when I'm driving. The green status light is always on. But believe whatever you want 🤡
Any_Shopping1633@reddit
Yes, record your DRIVING is the whole point. That's never been denied. But it's so stupid to think they're just sitting around the monitor watching you sleep because they have nothing else to do.
seang239@reddit
I only see you and like 1 or 2 others saying this. I’m not sure how you’re going to this assumption that people are just hanging around watching everyone’s video. That’s not what we’re talking about in this thread.
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
Most have the same functionality option.
Data storage is cheap and insanely compact now.
bogey9651@reddit
The camera will wake up and record if the truck is hit. After you turn the ignition off the light goes from green to blue and after about 5 minutes the camera shuts off completely. The only time it wakes up is if someone jostles the truck or you turn the ignition key on. Even then it does not activate unless you release the parking brakes.
Kiiaru@reddit
Yours might, my company's cam actively records and saves the last 120 hours, not just of drive time but in general. They also use an AI to tell if I'm speeding by reading speed limit signs as I go past, especially in construction zones.
My camera light is always green
seang239@reddit
Now think about what you just said. If the camera turns on and wakes up from being jostled, it wouldn’t catch whatever jostled it would it? It’d be gone by the time it boots up. The only way this works to record something jostling the truck is if it’s recording before the jostle happens. LED lights be damned, they’re running.
Eastern_East_96@reddit
Paranoia? That's how those cameras work with the mega carriers, they run 24/7 non fucking stop. Same as the hardwired dashcams, they don't stop running.
hooligan-6318@reddit
That's one of the biggest misconceptions, they do not run 24/7, just a few seconds before and after a "incident" (whatever "incident" is programmed into the system, braking, cornering..)
Think about it, there are millions of these damn things on the road already.
Who could possibly watch all that?
Where would they store all that video data?
RebelTvshka@reddit
At Knight, they record in 7 day intervals before writing over the data. 24/7. They don't create an "incident" unless it flags something. You can always manually watch the footage though. This is company dependent but they always have the option.
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
Bingo.
It's about how much you want to store. Bigger companies have more reasons to want to store it for longer, and storage gets cheaper as you scale it up. Thanks to automation and AI (which isn't great yet anyway), you don't even need to manually review the flags anymore either.
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
This
Directly contradicts this.
You can't wind back time and start recording after the event.
You start recording before the event to capture the start.
Events are just flags in the system for time stamps, they're not independent recordings.
yummers511@reddit
Agreed, none of these people are as interesting as they think they are. Nobody, and I mean nobody (sane) in a corporate office is going to take the time to randomly check driver facing cameras unless an event or "incident" triggers it. Most of the cameras do not even transmit cabin footage by default unless an event is detected, such as no seat belt or detecting cell phone use.
Those of us that operate these systems should really do a sort of AMA for this subreddit for anyone who has actual legitimate questions.
hooligan-6318@reddit
Trying to reason with a bunch of overly paranoid dummies is obviously pointless.
KlineyKline@reddit
They do. My company sent out an email verifying this. A 4 wheeler called to complain about a driver on X date and X time. Several weeks before the complaint. Safety said "pull that up, Jamie" it wasn't a critical incident, no accident alert, nothing. He was in the clear, they told the lady they saw her vehicle and nothing she said was true. Good for the driver but also it's recording 24/7
DumatRising@reddit
It would be a rather piss poor dash cam if it didn't record while driving..
Im-PhilMoreJenkins@reddit
They have revolving recording, they are recording 24/7. Yes, they are not saving those recordings, but they are, in fact, recording. The camera is constantly recording an alotted amount of time, deleting that video, and then starting a new recording. Incidents trigger the camera to store the current recording session, and flag the video for corporate. That's how they can see the before and after of an incident.
I have a personal dash cam thar works this way, and the Motive dashcam the company uses works the same way. It's how they all work. Otherwise storage would be a nightmare.
StonedTrucker@reddit
How would a camera record before an incident if it isn't always running? Have they figured out time travel? It doesn't matter if somebody is watching every single thing. Somebody could and that's bad enough
Dependa@reddit
Having power and always recording are two separate things.
I don’t know how these work but it is 100% possible they aren’t recording all the time. It’s pretty easy to code something like that.
Just like a ring camera. Always on but not always recording.
SidheDreaming@reddit
Ring cameras are always recording. The videos get saved in 24hr blocks that get recorded over for the next 24hr block. It's a constant cycle like an Ouroboros.
The same is true for dash cams and driver facing cameras.
PrivatePilot9@reddit
Ppl you’re kidding yourself if you believe that. Companies can set them up however they desire. If they want 24/7/365, they just tick the box. Hell, my $100 car dash cam can do 24/7 motion or always-on recording if I want.
seang239@reddit
The alerts are there to tell them to look at this date/time, not that that’s all the video they have. Even if you’re out of a service area with the live feeds, it stores it in the camera until you’re back in a service area.
Im-PhilMoreJenkins@reddit
Even if companies say they can't tune in live to a camera, it does make you a little uneasy. Can't trust anyone's word nowadays.
William-Burroughs420@reddit
You're correct in that some have the capability to record 24/7 and do! I'm not sure how many do but they absolutely have some that never stop recording.
Any_Shopping1633@reddit
Why would they need video of you doing nothing? It would just take up storage space.
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
Except there is.
The entire point is to find a single detail that absolves your employer and the insurer of responsibility relating to your actions. Any number of off duty activities could be sufficiently worded/portrayed in a way to do this.
Accomplished-Cat-632@reddit
If you can turn them off you’ll most probably forget to turn them on. Then get fired.
Micro-Skies@reddit
That's what curtains are for. Nobody can get mad at curtains at night
Some_Victory_5499@reddit
As a video I watched... It takes the Liability off the company and puts it on the driver and can be accountable in a court of law
Some_Victory_5499@reddit
They are a distraction, I dislike being watched, over 20 years of driving I don't need a babysitter
UnusualInjury5506@reddit
I’m one of the drivers who left JB hunt soon after they activated driver facing cameras. I wonder how that affected the statistic.
Tiempo13@reddit
This should be illegal. Let insurance companies place front facing cameras on all motor vehicles, let see what everyone thinks about that.
SlothyTendecies@reddit
We have outwards facing cameras and I don't care. Saved my ass in the accident I was involved in. Inwards is a no from me. We had them for a while before we got bought out and the new owners banned them. No reason for it if you aren't playing on your phone.
12InchPickle@reddit
I’m in the middle.
I’m for it because it can save my ass in the event of an accident.
I’m against it cause I’m tired of the damn thing screaming at me because I blinked my eyes and it thinks I’m drowsy.
LokiNog@reddit
How is a driver facing camera going to be beneficial for you in an accident? Versus not having a driver facing camera. I understand outward facing camera fully, but inward only serves to catch you not paying attention. Even if you were perfectly at attention, it's doesn't really help you and will just be overlooked. More likely, it'll catch you rubbing an eye or picking your nose, and then that will be the point of contention in a legal case.
12InchPickle@reddit
A idiot in a sedan was drifting into my lane and clipped the driver side fender / steps to get Inside. Front dash didn’t get it. He claimed I was the idiot drifting since I was on my phone. He saw the glare of my big ass 10 inch tablet that I use for gps.
Well the inward facing cam saw me NOT touching or even looking at my phone or tablet. I fact the outward cam saw me well within the lane. Never did I drift. Also records using your turn signals. Never did it show me distracted.
So in turn my ass was saved from getting a ticket .
Belthazor57@reddit
Why use a 10 inch tablet for gps?
seang239@reddit
So, if you took away the forward facing camera, how would you have proven you didn’t cross the lane?
If you took away the driver facing camera, wouldn’t the forward camera showing you not crossing the line button all that up?
I’d argue the driver facing cam did nothing for you here. In fact, without the forward facing camera, you wouldn’t have been able to show you stayed in your lane.
Uknow_nothing@reddit
Yeah the thing these companies do is convince themselves that they can save money by catching you before an accident and either putting the fear of God into you, or firing you.
But that is the risk, it could also cost them money if it tilts a case against you/them.
Virel_360@reddit
That’s why you turn the volume completely off.
Mydogfartsconstantly@reddit
If he has a netradyne camera then the volume buttons have been cut already.
Virel_360@reddit
Maybe take some gum or some pieces of tape and cover up the speakers to muffle/lower the volume. Do it when the truck is turned off as the camera will not be on so they have no video of you doing it. It’s one thing for the camera to be on and recording. It’s another thing for it to keep actively distracting you while you’re driving.
Mydogfartsconstantly@reddit
My company’s cameras dont do all of that. My managers have to request footage which the camera company reviews first. Unless there was an accident my managers wont even see the footage.
jokersboostedteg@reddit
When I would install them on a company fleet i would always do it so when u pulled the visor down it just conveniently blocked the view inside. Front facing all day but cab view is just completely invasive for no reason.
DieselAndPucks@reddit
They have AI nowadays. Pull that visor down and you get a call from safety within minutes to remove the camera obstruction.
DieselAndPucks@reddit
With how prevalent cellphone use is 25% reduction makes sense. Driver facing cameras absolutely suck but it's a matter of time until they're mandatory if you want to get a truck insured. Truck insurance is basically becoming a monopoly, they can dictate companies anything they want. There's no other competition. My last company is starting to roll them out next week here in Canada.
xxenoscionxx@reddit
I think there is probably a grain of truth in there somewhere. When I have driven in vehicles with driver facing cameras, I was certainly more aware of not grabbing for stuff that would make my eyes leave the road.
I got really good at drinking Red Bulls without diverting my gaze lol
Entertainer-8956@reddit
My brother was the safety director of a small fleet. (250 trucks) he put them in their trucks they saved over $500k the first year and also stopped 4 fraud lawsuits of people brake checking their trucks. They work. But where do they draw the line at overstepping?
Pierce_H_@reddit
How does a driver facing camera have anything to do with preventing fraud? I’m all for front facing cameras but inside facing is just invasive micromanaging.
lastingfame@reddit
It proves you were paying attention and not fucking around at time of accident.
Pierce_H_@reddit
The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused
USPSRay@reddit
Sadly, this applies only in criminal cases, not civil.
Pierce_H_@reddit
Pretty sure reckless driving is criminal
USPSRay@reddit
Right, but there were threads about suing. That's civil, which doesn't have the burden of proof on the prosection thing. It's what made it so. OJ was acquitted, but then successfully sued in civil court.
Seems nutty to me that one can be held civilly liable for something he was acquitted for in criminal court. That should be a deal breaker for civil court.
whubbard@reddit
Great, and the company's lawyers cost a lot of money through that process. Winning at trial covers some of the costs, but the company is still stuck with the majority of them.
seang239@reddit
It’s a double edge sword. It could just as easily prove you glanced at your phone and now the company is on the hook for huge payout that wouldn’t have happened if the driver facing camera wasn’t there.
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
Hell, something as simple as driving with one hand can be used against you in the ensuing civil case.
They still have the onus to prove their claims, but the bar is way lower.
seang239@reddit
It’s literally handing them their case on a silver platter. Any decent lawyer can paint pretty much anything you do as a distraction. I seriously believe driver facing cameras do way more harm than good.
Virel_360@reddit
You don’t have to prove your innocence, they have to prove your guilt
Beginning-World-1235@reddit
They suck but will be common place within all mega carrier soon imo. The ones that only record if you hard brake/take a curve too fast arnt bad at all. The ones that bitch at you if you take a sip of water or yawn too long are god awful
Dirtyhobosmurf@reddit
Ex IT guy /New trucker and have installed these "cameras" when I usto to work at local PD they can will and do listen and are able to watch 24/7/365 even the the truck is "off" It's all bs folks. It uses a cellphone chip to transmit in real time if selected to do so at that moment. Anyone telling you different is lying
Unreconstructed88@reddit
Drive naked.
Strong_Wasabi8113@reddit
They think it prevents drivers from being distracted by phones etc. Just drive with your di(k out and they won't be able to use the footage in court or it would be distributing CP
Ok_Length_1115@reddit
Werner lost millions due too the camera . The camera is beyond the most dumbest thing ever .
carolinasoldier1@reddit
They'll reduce my chance of working for them too
Btomesch@reddit
That’s cause they fired most the ppl. They installed those cameras at my last job and then fired most the ppl the been there 10-20 years. Now they can’t keep reliable ppl. I cover my camera with the sun visor 😂🤷
Conscious-Goddess@reddit
Don’t like them at all, our company records audio too. So I just stay off the phone most of the time, listen to audiobooks and music with headphones.
creationrose@reddit
It’s probably helpful to monitor new drivers, but not people with millions of safe miles.
Even so, it might still save your ass one day. Because it’s not the truck driver, we need to be worried about. But more of all of the crazy 4 wheelers people who cause the most accidents.
Theresbutteroanthis@reddit
Ultimately insurance companies will make them compulsory.
I’m enjoying trucking while I can before that comes a reality. Not a fucking chance I’m agreeing to being spied on all day, it’s absolutely mental that anybody outside of the greedy cunts at insurance companies think they’re beneficial/a good idea.
Trust me to do the job or don’t.
KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit
Well yeah, because these are protection for them, not their customers.
It's a lot easier to nullify your liability with random pitfalls in a contract when you force the other party to give you minute by minute evidence of them falling into those pitfalls.
I don't even really blame insurance, it's ultimately good business for them to require it, and they've got a captive market. You have to buy their product, so they've got the negotiating advantage in these contracts.
Theresbutteroanthis@reddit
You actually sound happy about that.
What you doing for Christmas? Running around telling every kid you see that Santa isnt real?
AdventurousLawyer646@reddit
Yea yea big brother is watching. Who cares I'm still gone do a rolling stop at most stop signs while picking my nose and talking on the phone. 🤷🏿♂️
IAMTHEBENJI@reddit
Every time I see this kind of post, I like to read the different points everyone makes. Before I didn't really care but I'm starting to see why everyone hates it so much. Phones know when they're being messed with so that's not even a legitimate use case. I feel like where it serves as loss prevention, like cabs connected to cargo holds, it is ok. However, most trucks aren't built like that. I always felt like it was an invasion but never paid it mind where I'm at because there's no audio or live feed. Cameras that talk have no business in a vehicle. Looking at it from a company POV, I wouldn't want to spend extra money to have 3rd party equipment installed to a truck and have to pay someone to watch some asshole pick his nose and explain why he can't. Plus, insurance companies have too much power and are using extortion to push an agenda that defeats the whole point insurance. They tell you to fuck off and collect your money anyway
Responsible_CDN_Duck@reddit
From my experience while some of the people who object to cameras have deeply heal beliefs, more seem to subconsciously know they do things that are actually dangerous and use it as an excuse.
That leads me to believe the dangerous drivers quitting on principles are responsible for most of the reduction.
AnomalousSquid@reddit
I’m against driver facing cameras. Yeah, I have one, and since I am very well aware that it’s essentially a direct line to safety, I speak to it as such, with absolutely no filtering of content or vocabulary what so ever.
The only legitimate reason for installing them is to get the insurance companies out of paying on a claim, as far as I can see. So it’s no wonder that’s who’s pushing them so hard. Any overlap or reduction in safety from pre camera installation to post camera installation could likely be directly attributed to drivers realizing they’re being watched and cleaning up their act.
yummers511@reddit
I understand the concerns but this reeks of "old man yells at cloud". All industries change through the introduction and adoption of technology. Transportation is slower than most, but is no different in the end. This IS the future and will only become more common. If anyone has valid questions, I'm happy to discuss and dispel any myths if possible. I'll start with "no, you're not interesting enough for staff to randomly pull pictures from the driver facing camera"
TallInterview7942@reddit
Honestly I don’t care, I’m naked half the time & it’s a free show for them.
DukeReaper@reddit
I got nothing to hide, and it has saved my butt once so im all for it, that's my opinion, if you're not ready to drive without distraction, pull over until you are. Simple. Yea I'll scratch my face, pick my nose when I need to , but I won't reach back or under or stretch out. No need
Juiceshakek@reddit
I despise the driver facing cameras, albeit has covered my ass twice, had on two occasions in 21’ cars sideswipe me and it was wide enough angle to see I was in my lane. (Both guys had told the cops I came into their lane). But still fuck these cameras. I’m as vulgar as possible, hit the button to record and point out roadkill and give it the middle finger every time I see those red lights going crazy.
seang239@reddit
Sounds like the outward facing cameras helped you. Staring at your pearly whites wouldn’t have done a thing in your examples without a camera showing outside the truck.
Due-Pilot-7443@reddit
I'm glad they didn't have this shit when I was drivin many many years ago.. still had flip phones smart phones weren't even being carried by anyone.... And people were civil on the CB.....
J-Kensington@reddit
No it didn't. There's absolutely no way to prove this statistic.
What CAN be true is that since they installed DFC's, preventables have decreased by 25%. And on the corporate side, that's all that matters.
But how many drivers were fired who didn't have an accident, thus leaving trucks empty that would otherwise have been making money? In other words, has gross income decreased as well?
How much money has been wasted on both remote and in-person "coaching"?
How many loads have been lost, appointments missed, and possibly clients lost because drivers hurrying is suddenly a risk to their career?
Preventables might well be down, but it's not because Big Brother is suddenly sitting in the truck. It's because trucks are sitting still.
HangoverGang4L@reddit
This number seems ridiculously cooked. If not, jesus...maybe JB Hunt needs to vet their potential employees more?
Rubes2525@reddit
That's what I am thinking. This is what happens when you provide 0 incentives for responsible drivers to work for you then compensate by hiring any idiot with a pulse.
Megalodon7770@reddit
No sane human will drive for jb. Same goes for Schneider,prime,swift Amazon etc. Front facing camera is fine, but facing drives lmao 25 years out there and nothing, not a scratch. Find your self’s smaller company’s and truck drivers as owners.
MN8616@reddit
If carriers would hire experienced drivers and pay more, to retain them, a 25% drop in accidents/claims would be embarrassingly low. Find it interesting that driver facing cameras are installed in trucks but not the entire fleet, because that would include some members of management. Just saying . . .
Ok_Bug_6470@reddit
Interpretive science. Only looks at factors that support the outcome they want. Same way they do studies and say no parking problems.
tinysavage@reddit
Exactly. JB Hunt trucks are slower on the road. They aren't including the reduced speed into their data. I think they are governed at 63 mph.
City401k@reddit
Yeah could have just been a reduction in business or business in a high accident area ect. Many different things
Ok_Bug_6470@reddit
I’m wonder what percentage above 25 could have been prevented with better training and higher quality drivers.
JustAGuyTrynaSurvive@reddit
I will never put them in my trucks unless they are forced by regulation. Sometimes it's better not to know EVERYTHING.
SchreiberBike@reddit
I need to know the source for that information. If it was produced by an independent organization I'd listen to it, but still wonder. I bet it was thrown out as a wild-ass guess by somebody who sells cameras, or by an insurance company looking for reasons to blame others. Just the fact that it's 25%, not 24 or 26, an even quarter, makes me suspicious.
tinysavage@reddit
Jb hunt trucks are slower on the road. I think lower speed was the contributing factor.
Deedogg11@reddit
This is an insurance driven development. Insurance Companies are forcing it, it really depends upon how your company is using them.
drinkslinger1974@reddit
When it comes to basic safety, driver facing cameras can be a good thing, but when the carrier hires a third party to observe the footage and the AI can mistake scratching your nose for taking a shot of fireball, well that sucks.
RogerEpsilonDelta@reddit
Drive with no pants on
Objective_Maybe3489@reddit
Know one guy that runs with them. He said they can watch me pick my nose all day for all I care. Seems reasonable. Plus when there is an incident helps take the liability off the driver unless you actually fucked up and caused the incident I think.
loupr738@reddit
I only have forward facing and I was for them until recently. I have a radio that enables Apple CarPlay in my truck and safety was pushing for my suspension because I acknowledge a notification from Waze on my radio. They saw me reaching to touch the screen on the reflection on the windshield
Jazzlike-Election840@reddit
i work for a nationwide LTL and they are writing guys up more and more for the reflection off the windshield of the forward facing camera of a driver looking at his phone. now obviously the driver is not supposed to do that, but the camera was supposed to really only be something that would be used against you if it was triggered. rolling through stop signs, hard braking, lane drifting etc. nothing is triggering the camera. they are obviously going out of their way and looking at mostly night time, but some have been during the day, to break stones. look ive been doing this a long time, i know we are really just numbers in their numbered units delivering freight. they can do whatever they want inside of legal standards and really our only option is to leave. that’s trucking for the most part. i don't like inward facing cameras. they are mostly used when it is convenient for a company to break drivers nuts. i know guys that work for two of the mega LTL companies and that is 90% of what they do. i know some drivers shouldn't be driving, and that's the 10% where it makes sense. that number JB Hunt is throwing out there has way more variables than what is presented. they are one of the biggest out there. that number can easily be adjusted to make their point. drivers should understand that cameras are not just to cover their asses like they are always told. it's just reason number 99 to love being in this industry 😉😉
Daddgonecrazy@reddit
Always busted freight?
Jazzlike-Election840@reddit
nah. Running Late 👍
TruckerAlurios@reddit
The number of fuckery I see north of home town for yall is astounding.
Mister_Meenor@reddit
We have them, and every single one has a piece of tape on them.
majinspy@reddit
This is elogs 2, electric boogaloo. A lot of "I'll never do it and you shouldn't either. They make everything less safe!"
End result: it's safer and people are far more "take this job and shove it" in reddit than IRL.
bezm12@reddit
Add JB Hunt to the list of companies I'll never work for.
J-Rag-@reddit
They're baby monitors meant to micromanage your every move. It's only the higher ups who have never been in a truck who think they're a good idea.
Personally I'd like to put a camera in their offices 3ft from their face all day and see what their response is.
Fit_Hospital2423@reddit
That’s easy to believe. You hire pretty lousy drivers, they do stupid stuff when no one’s watching, and cause wrecks. You find a way to watch them, they do less stupid stuff, and have less wrecks.
ntech620@reddit
Thing to remember. Once mandated on trucks then they’ll start looking at the automobile drivers next. They already slipped the black boxes into all new cars now . Just think when they can add video to that.
Turbulent-Pay1150@reddit
Many new cars already have driver monitoring cameras from Hyundai to Tesla and many in between.
deadpat03@reddit
Yea and condoms prevent 100% of pregnancies.
CellistOutrageous163@reddit
I think driver facing cameras are fine as long as I have a camera in the CEO’s house that I can watch at all times to make sure he isn’t making any shady business deals
HotNewspaper5800@reddit
Good one. Yeah see how they like it in their own space
dtw350@reddit
I used to be against it, but the more and more I see drivers with their phone in the face going down the highway I think everyone needs it now.
mctwiddle@reddit
Doesn't surprise me with JB hunt drivers
treesmith1@reddit
Just a way for companies to introduce doubt into a courtroom in a liable situation. Meaning if the company driver sued the company for whatever reason. The video still has to be "interpreted." or can be used to establish a pattern of behaviour even if it isn't relative to the specific incident. They are just a bet hedge for the insurance companies like so many things these days. If the 25% is real that is impressive however.
Natural_Panic@reddit
I dont believe this stat at all.
CheesE4Every1@reddit
Sure, it doesn't need to talk to me or flash unless there's a wreck though. Just because I pass under a bridge and your satellite picks up a different speed limit doesn't mean that the interstate is suddenly 30mph And you need to tattle on me And then my leadership has to go and see that I passed under a fuckung bridge.
Your product sucks, motiv
Leaf-Stars@reddit
I think it’s bullshit. Every fucking bell and whistle they’ve installed in our trucks over the last decade has only been more distracting. Having a camera that tells you you’re distracted is even more distracting.
hooligan-6318@reddit
The insurance backed powers that be will spin it however they want to make it positive.
Likely, if you're in a company truck, if you don't have them yet, you will.
Insurance companies are pushing them pretty hard.
Small mom & pop I worked for back in the early 2010's had them, guys were fucking up loads like it was a sport (skidded coils) Owners insurance company pushed the installation of cameras pretty hard. Funny thing was, the guys that bitched the most were the very fucking reason we had them. It obviously cut down on dumb shit, I don't drive like an asshole so I couldn't have cared less.
"If y'all want to see me pick my nose or scratch my balls, all the shit I try not to do in public, then so be it"
Kiiaru@reddit
I differ to my desire for privacy and the fact that my truck is my home. It is ILLEGAL for a recording device to be in a room where privacy is assumed (changing room, locker room, bathroom, etc) It's entirely reasonable for me to be naked or using the bathroom in my home, where I expect privacy. So I would refuse a driver facing camera.
Canada already laid this to rest in 2017 (granted the court case started in 2012) with a court ruling that driver facing cameras violate the drivers Right to Privacy.
Here in America the right to privacy is less strongly worded but a case could be made off the 4th amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" granted that's written in the spirit of the government searching you, not a business. BUT... States from California to Montana have laws that define privacy as a right.
So... I guess what I'm saying is, someone from California needs to sue their company for having driver facing cameras. Most fleets run through California and they'd have to abide by whatever ruling California says.
SillyGooses22@reddit
The company i currently work for installed cameras after 25 years in the business. None of that AI crap though. Apparently the insurance company forced it upon us after two wrecks in a year for a fleet of 20 trucks. I don't really mind it, they have never said anything to me. AI cameras on the other hand I'll never approve.
Dead_Namer@reddit
I don't mind as long as they are triggered to only save data after an accident or the driver presses a button on the camera.
The company should not be able to see you getting changed, picking your nose etc. That's a huge invasion of privacy.
overmycrown@reddit
I think they're beneficial to the driver in case of an accident, can cut down insurance costs, and apparently also reduce preventables. However the reason people hate them is an entirely different argument. No one wants to be watched every second of the day or have an outside camera in their home. I know other jobs can have cameras and stuff but in trucking it's almost too close and invasive. I do think a good middle ground could be an offline camera so the driver could have extra protection in case of an accident but also the peace of mind knowing they're not being watched
Nozerone@reddit
I could believe it. If there is a chance that the company will catch you fiddling with your phone while driving, many people will be more inclined to avoid doing it, which means more people actually paying attention to the road. That's the idea anyways. A lot of people can't keep their nose out of their phone to save their life, but if the cameras prevent at lest some people from messing with their phones, or doing something they aren't suppose to be doing, then it's a win.
Only time I have an issue with driver facing cams is companies that say to never cover them, even if parked and on a 10 or 34. Fuck that. If I'm parked, the camera is covered. You can watch me drive and pick my nose if you want, but you're not going to get a view of my personal down time.
3579@reddit
when my last job got cameras i didnt change anything that i did. that fucking thing would go off every time i looked out the mirror, took a drink, scratched my nose, rub my eye, anything. i stuck a piece of gorilla tape over the speaker hole and i could barely hear it anymore. the first day i guess it went off like 60 times for me, the manager had to watch every single alert(like 30 sec of video each time). i heard him bitching about having to watch hours of video every day, rarely ever was anything ever a violation. i started fucking with the camera, tilting my head down but looking up, tilting to the side looking forward. that shit would start beeping and screaming at me louder and more angry. after like 2 weeks they turned all the auto tattle off and weren't going to be watching violations anymore because it never found any, they would only look at accidents from then on. i found out from my boss that they were going nuts at corprate trying to watch all these videos when every driver is generating like an hour+ a day. i know they stopped looking because one day i had to come in early(usually didnt start till after dark at night) and i had to pull the viser down and moved it over and it blocked the camera. i just left it down all night and they never said anything. so every night i drive with my visor down and over covering the camera because the moonlight was too bright. never said shit to me for a couple years before i quit.
Present-Ambition6309@reddit
Holy sheep shit that camera must be one them high dollar government projects! Damm thing prevents accidents not even looking ahead, it can look at me and prevent the accident. Ain’t that some fancy technology hound dawggy shit fire.
I’ve seen it all now. Next year that camera will have made a few babies I bet, sending them kids off to college, yep, must be nice to be that smart n powerful. What the hell am I in the drivers seat for then? Put fuel in this pig? No wonder the wage ain’t moved. Sly SOB’s.
“Hey hun, bad news! I ain’t truckin no more, nope, just a traveling fuel guy now. Sit in the sleeper with my PS5 until it pulls in to a pilot, hell idk what state I’m in right now! Probably another week I reckon, love ya, kiss the kids for me!”
masterslickback@reddit
I had a driver ask for one so they can prove they went doing anything wrong if they get into an accident
seang239@reddit
He wasn’t thinking clearly.
That same driver facing camera can just as easily prove your driver glanced at something and now the company is on the hook for a lawsuit that wouldn’t have happened if the video didn’t exist.
This is the same reason we went light on certain cameras on certain areas of our business. Some things, some times, can just as easily, if not more easily, screw you rather than help you. Driver facing camera is one of those things.
If your company uses them, you better cross your fingers that you don’t have a driver glance at anything and have an accident. Oh, you better not delete any video if there’s an accident either. Conveniently deleted video screams I’m guilty. Same with claiming the camera “was down.” Food for thought.
Puzzleheaded-Hat5803@reddit
Total invasion of privacy, that sleeper is our office, our kitchen, our living room, our bedroom and sometimes our bathroom. Having driver facing cameras should be Illegal. On the other hand I do see how they could help weed out people that use their phones while driving. That's about the only plus I can see to them.
Theresbutteroanthis@reddit
That’s a problem for the insurance companies and the police. Making the majority’s job pretty much untenable for the action of a minority is a disgraceful approach.
xDoomKitty@reddit
If you fire everyone for sneezing, they don't have a chance to wreck..
humpthedog@reddit
I’m local, have one, and it doesn’t bother me. You forget about them quickly. Just can’t touch my phone while driving.
GroundbreakingSir386@reddit
I would want proof as a driver that I didn't cause an accident. Only thing that pisses me off is if my manager is constantly monitoring my camera all day in his office.
Coodevale@reddit
If your outward facing camera is pointed at a reflective surface, it's also functioning as a driver facing camera. I know mine is because I can see my reflection in my recordings.
Mixed. Cover my ass but also don't look at my ass.
stephenforbes@reddit
Experienced drivers dont need driver facing cameras.
InvestigatorBroad114@reddit
Running 24/7 is a joke. If they’re recording you driving no big deal. These AI intergrated ones are shit when they scream at you for looking in your mirror too long. I have an outward facing camera and that’s enough.