In Cab Cameras On The Driver

So, Lucky, for you first post on this forum you drag up an old topic that has been hashed over "100 times". And you must have read that though the camera is recording 24/7, nothing is sent to the office unless there's some event. So the unblinking eye is not sending your every sneeze and every butt scratch in to Safety.

The mic you see might be the one for the BT phone/radio connection. And if there really is a problem, Safety wants to know if you're paying attention in the first place. Dozing off while driving is incredibly dangerous. Looking on the floor for your dropped sunglasses is a no no.

Getting down to Highway to Hell just might get you there, if you're on the interstate. Or if you're arguing with your co-driver instead of focusing on the road ahead you need to stop that now.

Lucky, I got called in for exactly the same thing as you. My DM nodded her head and said "But you had your cellphone in your hand while driving, right?" and I had to take the hit.

Go in, sign the paper, then get a windshield mount for your cellphone. Stick it right under the camera. They'll never know.

So, Lucky, for you first post on this forum you drag up an old topic that has been hashed over "100 times". And you must have read that though the camera is recording 24/7, nothing is sent to the office unless there's some event. So the unblinking eye is not sending your every sneeze and every butt scratch in to Safety.

The mic you see might be the one for the BT phone/radio connection. And if there really is a problem, Safety wants to know if you're paying attention in the first place. Dozing off while driving is incredibly dangerous. Looking on the floor for your dropped sunglasses is a no no.

Getting down to Highway to Hell just might get you there, if you're on the interstate. Or if you're arguing with your co-driver instead of focusing on the road ahead you need to stop that now.

Lucky, I got called in for exactly the same thing as you. My DM nodded her head and said "But you had your cellphone in your hand while driving, right?" and I had to take the hit.

Go in, sign the paper, then get a windshield mount for your cellphone. Stick it right under the camera. They'll never know.

For those who may be interested in why some of the most recent research data indicate that "In Cab cameras on the driver" IS MORE DETRIMENTAL than beneficial, for the driver & the trucking company, you may want to read the MAR 2016 article "The Big Question: Cameras on the Driver or Not?" at www.FleetOwner.com.

:::: bangs head::::: the thread that won't go away lol

I stayed out of this last year cause I thought it ridiculous.

After working at the post office where we were video recorded, listened to with directional.microphones, had guys on catwalks watching us with binoculars and were even timed in the bathroom (which after a set period was deducted from our vacation time) I laughed my butt off at this "controversy"

Point blank...COVER the camera when off duty. Don't undress, or wash with the curtain open...

The only think that would bother me is I might feel compelled to always wear a bra hahah...which i admit...to be comfortable is not the norm while driving cause mine feel like a freaking constricting straight jacket.,,.and Paul and tractor man...dont even tell me I need a straight jacket lol

J.A. wrote:

For those who may be interested in why some of the most recent research data indicate that "In Cab cameras on the driver" IS MORE DETRIMENTAL than beneficial, for the driver & the trucking company, you may want to read the MAR 2016 article "The Big Question: Cameras on the Driver or Not?" at www.FleetOwner.com.

Wow,...big news hah? Interesting post J.A, although you kinda stepped in your own "do-do" and didn't realize it. Please allow me to explain...

So the author's first article was the one you mentioned above, here is the link: "The Big Question: Cameras on the Driver or Not?"

Here is the follow-up article written by the same author: "Driver facing cameras; why they are important."

Did you happen to read the second one? It's difficult to take the first article at face value after reading the follow-on piece.

I think the author's intent is to influence a prospective buyer of this technology (the fleet owner) so they doubt their ability to make an informed/safe decision without outside assistance. By offering multiple counter points and complexities...he leads the interested reader to believe by doing nothing there is risk and by doing something there is also risk. "Geez I really need help with this cause I do not understand it, I need to hire a consulting firm to figure this out for me."

The author is the CEO of a company that consults with trucking companies about the specifics and details of camera technology and also offers other services for fleet implementation & driver adoption of the technology. It's likely he also has VAR agreements from technology manufacturers so he can also earn a commission on a camera deal he helps to sell. Notice how he didn't reveal any of his sources; the studies, the data? Sign his contract and as if by magic you will have links to every one of them and will pay him to explain it to you. He is selling his consulting services, his business.

He likely paid for an advertising package in FleetOwner and negotiated content space in support of his business. He is a very smart and slick marketer. Nothing wrong with that,...just calling it like I see it.

Oh G-Town busts that dude wide open!!!

Great catch!

So the credibility of those two articles? Zero! They're marketing pieces and nothing more.