Which Expediter Will Be the First to Use Driver Cams?

[davekc]

I could see some advantages of a forward facing one, but not in the cab for the reasons that many listed. Again, no real benefit to the driver. He/she stands to lose more than they would gain. Also as mentioned, the independent contractor component would likely kill anything like this.
Also have to remember, carriers are looking out for their self interest. If you are even in question, they will quickly disown you. Happens every day. Just not something I would ever support unless there is a major change in the industry. Just too many places for carriers to abuse the technology.

On the upside, much can already be gained just off the ecm. Everything from speed, shifting, wheel spin to hard braking.

 

[Turtle]

Despite the California State Attorney General declaring cab cameras as not being an invasion of privacy, it's precisely how drivers feel about it. It's also a trust issue. If you don't trust me, why did you hire me in the first place, and unless I've given you a reason not to trust me now, there's no reason for the camera.

It's a tool that drives an unnecessary wedge of adversarial animosity between carrier and driver.

 

[davekc]

Very true. I guess one could drill down a little further and look at how this would or could be used by some carriers.
As mentioned, catch a driver looking at a gps for a little too long. Gone for distracted driving. Just tell the fleet owner to find another one. Rinse and repeat.
Or, again as mentioned, they record a driver with a yawn. Here we go. Shut the truck down and send them to a doctor to do a sleep test for a month. Of course the doctor is contracted by the carrier and the doctor owns or has a financial interest in the sleep center. And yup, driver loses their income and has to pay for their sleep study. And again, rinse and repeat.
Nope, don't see any benefit to the driver or the fleet owner.

 

[Moot]

Which individual expediter or expedite carrier will be the first to do the same?

Todd Patrick.

 

[xiggi]

Some drivers just like face time.

 

[cheri1122]

In the vid shown, there was no need for the camera to show the driver looking at his phone - his phone itself will prove it. The ECM proves a lot. In case of accident, what more do they need?
Insurance would very much like to rid themselves of the slightest "potential" for a claim, and I think they're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater to do it.

 

[Yowpuggy]

All we been is cameras on four sides, and that will tell how, investigation will tell why.

 

[mjmsprt40]

Letting my imagination run wild, safe to ignore:

Imagine that they DO put one of these contraptions in my van. First day out: The video somehow gets to a TV producer (don't ask me how-- grin). They decide this would make a wonderful reality show, and they run with it.

Within days of the show's first airing, you see a grey van being pursued by a long line of cars. Each car has women in it, hopeful that she can get a date/maybe someday marry the driver of the van. Every pickup/delivery becomes a new kind of adventure, starring little ol' me.

Within days of THAT happening, you see long lines of drivers at the various carriers offices, DEMANDING that cameras be placed in their vehicles too. Who knew that being on camera could be so much fun?

OK, imagination over: We all know the above will never happen. But every once in awhile, it's fun to dream. I doubt that the outfit I drive for would do this unless their insurance carrier demands it (hard-to-justify expense) so if I want one I'll have to buy one--- and I won't. If a camera did get installed, it appears that the critter doesn't record enough to be worth the bother. Further--- being chased by women???? In my dreams.

 

[JohnMueller]

There can be positives and there are negatives to these in cab cameras.

I would like folks to think of the answers to the following questions regarding this accident:

If this truck was operated by an owner operator leased onto a motor carrier, would the owner operators insurance company be paying this claim or would the motor carrier's insurance company be paying this claim if this driver was under dispatch at the time of the accident, or even returning home from a load?

Is the motor carrier held responsible for the actions of the independent contractors leased to it?

Did the motor carrier do something illegal to cause this accident or did the owner operator do something illegal which caused this accident?

Which party violated the terms of the agreement?

Ummmmmmm I'm just sayin.....

 

[skyraider]

About 6 weeks ago now, my son was sitting in traffic in South Carolina at night on the interstate, when another big rig slammed into his trailer, then a few seconds later, another rig slams into the rig that just ran into my sons rig,,,,wish there had been a cam on both of the 2 trucks that hit him,,,............................my sons trailer was totaled, his tractor engine pushed off motor mounts and tranny damaged, cab was ripped off of its mountings and this ordeal is still going on, and no word yet from any insurance companies of the 2 rigs that hit him...and, and do not expect your attorney to solve this one quickly, he has gotten word that this wreck will take anywhere from one to 3 years to solve,,,,yeah buddy, you insurance at work.............real life here guys.

 

[davekc]

Very true how that works. We had a driver hit one of our trucks in a truck stop and tried to run. Another driver got his plate and he admitted he hit it. Got the truck fixed in about four months and zip on down time except what we got from Progressive via their policy which had a max payout of 5k or there abouts.. Since it was on private property, it would cost more to sue than you would collect. Impact wasn't that bad as a fleet owner but if this was a individual, better have some cash behind you. Be tough to make all your truck costs and living expenses on 5k for at least 4 months. Don't forget, still need to pay that deductible before any work starts.
Yep, insurance is a racket. For all I know, progressive is still chasing their money. Oh, and Great Western is who hit that truck. Truck was parked and drivers were sleeping. Never assume.

 

[paullud]

If I'm driving MY vehicle, as an independent contractor-- that driver dash-cam needs some talking about at the very least. That could be construed as an invasion of my space and an attempt by the company to impose rules that violate the differences between contractor and employee status.

Try telling FedEx, Panther, or just about any other reputable that it's your vehicle and you don't want a Qualcomm that tracks every move you make.

 

[mjmsprt40]

Try telling FedEx, Panther, or just about any other reputable that it's your vehicle and you don't want a Qualcomm that tracks every move you make.

Strangely enough, the Qualcomm is a slightly different issue. It tracks the movement of the vehicle. It doesn't record every time you belch or talk to yourself about something.

 

[Turtle]

The Qualcomm also has a tangible benefit to the driver, versus a (statistically rare) theoretical benefit of a cab cam. For the driver, the Qualcomm is low risk, high reward. The cab cam exactly the opposite.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

...

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Cell phones should just cut off when the GPS phones sense more then 10MPH or something like that....we did fine before them and world prospered....we'd make do without them....
the QC cuts off....

 

[xiggi]

Well there is no reason. Passengers should not be able to use their phone.

 

[pearlpro]

This goes back to my SAFETY RECORD, If my driving record shows me to be safe, my inspection record, and license all clean, then why do i want to submit to something as intrusive as a camera. Insurance companys will say its to relieve you of liability etc etc etc, Lawyers will say its shows you were distracted, and not paying attention WHY, because I was Multi Tasking as drivng a truck down a highway requires, Raining, Snowing, Traffic, Cell, GPS, Radio/CB....I can work all of them like a boss, and have for years, no differently then a pilot watching a huge dash filled with Gauges......SAFETY RECORD....if it doesnt mean something then why is it so important....my 2 cents, Nope Id never want a camera facing me as I drive.... Ive adapted my Cell to using a Indash stereo controlled Bluetooth talkback system and have no issue with talking, driving, MULTI TASKING and maintaing my vehicle...Frankly if you cant do that, GET OUT...Its getting a bit ridiculous in the name of safety/liability and over the top.

 

[FlyingVan]

Big companies can do basically whatever they want. All of them have something in the conteact that says that both parties can terminate the contract for any or no reason.

So, how about if tomorrow Panther or FedEx, or ... comes up with a new contract that says that all vehicles will have a camera pointed at the driver. If you don't want one your contract is terminated.

Btw, years ago when I was leased to one of the Big Companies, half way through my contract they came up with a revised contract that affected my pay tremendously. I refused signing it thinking that I can ride out my contract first. I was informed that if I don't sign the new contract I would no longer be leased to them. So, they forced me to sign a pay cut and nothing I could do about it. Same thing with the camera.

As for me, there will be no camera facing me in my vehicle. If it comes to that I will find something else to do.

 

[davekc]

That would be the risk that carriers aren't likely to take unless there is a surplus of drivers and trucks. If hypothetically Panther decided to do this, I would have no issue having the trucks pulled by the end of the week. Too many other carriers want our fleets services.