SWIFT In Cab Cameras

Remember that we're all big boys capable of having a friendly debate.

im a girl thank you! Lol

And herin lies my point. Are you willing to work for a company that will throw you under the bus for doing what EVERY DRIVER does? And at the cost of privacy.

So the bottom line is this: the cameras are 99.9% in favor of the company, .1% of the driver. So one of the leading selling points to the drivers is "these are for YOUR protection." When in fact, that's only by a slight by product of the real reason "company protection."

So these are a threat to every driver, which is why we're seeing such a back lash from drivers.

"nobody is saying you can't take your eyes off the road." True...But if you do and in that moment get involved in an accident, that even if someone ran a red and hit you, YOU are at fault. So in a sense, taking your eyes off the road for ANY length of time is wrong. But guess what, everybody does at one point or another.

The police are going thru a similar situation with body cams. And being told the same untruth. "It's for YOUR protection." When in fact the biggest proponents of any cameras comes from the either the public or owners. Are the police wanting to have their every move monitored? The majority aren't. So why is it so surprising to hear so many drivers/police against 24-7 monitoring?

So again, call this monitoring for the truth of what it really is; a way for the wealthy/government/public to protect their ass. And then hang someone for being human. That ought to teach em.

I guess it is also relevant to ask: is it ok to make a mistake? If your answer is "when it costs a life than no," than you're probably right. But if you make a mistake like take your eyes off the road for a second and nobody gets hurt, it's still not ok because you were caught on camera doing it. So now, with 24-7 monitoring....You are never allowed to make a mistake/error in judgement. And what human being can possibly never do that?

Like I said..the cameras are a trojan horse. If you can't read the writing on the wall, than I don't know what to tell y'all.

Scenario:

Moderate traffic, about 30 mph. You prepare to move to the left lane, a left turn for you ahead. Check the left three mirrors, then you look forward. The-car-in-front-of-you-has-stopped-short! Brakes-slide-crunch-"They're-going-to-see-this-in-Pheonix!"

You didn't expect the car in front to stop quickly, you only looked away to check your mirrors. Yes, you are the perpetrator of a rear end collision.

What did you do wrong? Can the camera save you or fire you?

Don't get me wrong, believe me, I know and care very much about our privacy being taken away by our over-reaching government. It's a very serious issue, and one very near and personal to me. "The New American" is one of my favorite news sources, and I'm friends with one of the editors, if that says anything about my political views...

But I think a distinction has to be made here between companies self-policing and government intrusion. The DOT is not putting these cameras in, and if they did, I might have a different opinion on the whole matter. But since they are not, I don't see this issue as being explicitly related to the separate issue of government intrusion into the private lives of ordinary citizens.

Secondly, I don't think anyone expects any driver to stare straight ahead of their truck 100% of the time without blinking. That's just unreasonable and not humanly possible (at least until those government-mandated bionic implants become a reality!). After all, we're expected to be regularly scanning things around us (mirrors, gauges, etc.). So to say that if you glance away from your windshield for even a split second and a car swerves out in front of you and it's automatically your fault if you hit them is, in my opinion, an exaggeration.

Terry, not to pick on you specifically (and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was in my last post—I was really just scrolling up and down, and using your recent points to represent the opposition to my argument. I hope nothing I said came off as sarcastic!), but in reality, many of the activities which we think are quick and harmless, if you really sit down and think about it objectively, can be dangerous and could probably wait until later:

Lighting a cigarette? That's a tough one, but you do have to take at least one if not both hands off the wheel to do that, and also look down at least momentarily to make sure you're not burning off your mustache. Plus if you do that at night, there goes your night vision for a few seconds.

Grabbing food? Well, unless it's a bag of chips that you opened at your last stop and is sitting within arms reach so you can grab a chip without looking down at the bag, this also will involve both hands off the wheel and/or eyes off the road. I don't know, I don't think anyone could fault someone for munching on a granola bar while driving, but there are varying levels. For example, eating a T-bone steak with a fork and knife might be a little unreasonable.

Looking at a map? Well I'm sorry, but that's just unsafe. If I knew a driver was going down the street with a map in hand, looking at it and trying to figure out where to turn, and I was on the jury for his trial after he hit someone, I would absolutely place blame on him. There are ways to avoid this scenario. Study your route. Memorize the main commercial streets near your destination and have backup routes in case you miss a turn. And above all, if you do have to look at the map, pull over and stop.

Taking a call? I would hope we all have phones nowadays with a speakerphone option, if not a Bluetooth headset. I have my phone set up to verbally announce who's calling and to give me the option to answer it with a voice command so I don't even have to take my eyes off the road. If these options are not available though, I don't think anyone should be answering a hand-held phone, seeing as how it is illegal and can result in major points on your license.

Read a sign? That's just part of the standard expectations of driving. We're expected to read all road signs as we pass them, and that's not considered inattentive driving, that's actually being fully attentive. Who wants to miss that road construction speed limit, the "scale ahead—all trucks must exit" sign, or the dreaded low clearance? I think that ties back into the day-to-day practice of driving commercially: scanning your surroundings.

Picking up a fallen object? Seriously, if you have to reach down for it, it's going to take your attention, your eyes, and at least one hand off the wheel. If it's not essential, just wait until you stop to get it. And if it is essential, then by all means, stop and get it!

My instructor gave me this handy little formula. There are 5,280 feet in a mile, and 3,600 seconds in an hour. Divide those and you get a factor of 1.47 ft/sec. Multiply this by whatever speed you're going, and that's how many feet you will travel in one second. At 25 mph, that's almost 37 feet. At 45 mph, that's 66 feet. And at 65 mph, that's almost 96 feet. In one second. It takes longer than that for your brain to even recognize a hazard and force your muscles to react. Think about how much can happen in that distance.

Am I the perfect driver? No, but I sure am trying my hardest to make myself as perfect as I can. The fact is, if you can show a jury that you were doing everything in your power to be cautious and safe, they'll have no choice but to believe it. Do any of the things above, and you've just given them a reason to doubt it. The camera gives them a window to see what really happened. Is that fair? Well, if my family was killed by a driver who was lighting a cigarette when he plowed into them at full speed, you're damn right I would think it's fair, and I would gladly see him rot in prison. And if they were killed because of a freak and unavoidable accident in which he was attentive and was driving as safely as possible, I would think that was fair too and I would hold no ill will towards him.

Im in no way saying they are a great idea but I do plan on having my own dash cam if the company I hire with doesnt have them. They can protect as much as hurt and there in lies the whole line of this debate. A company doesnt want its driver to be at fault opens ways for al kinds of law suits so yeah the camera can protect you the companies lawyer if doing there job will argue to your side. in the event the qc is what takes your eyes off the road then doesn't that make it your dms fault for sending you those messages?

Im in no way saying they are a great idea but I do plan on having my own dash cam if the company I hire with doesnt have them. They can protect as much as hurt and there in lies the whole line of this debate. A company doesnt want its driver to be at fault opens ways for al kinds of law suits so yeah the camera can protect you the companies lawyer if doing there job will argue to your side. in the event the qc is what takes your eyes off the road then doesn't that make it your dms fault for sending you those messages?

no-one has issues with a forward facing cam, infact the majority of drivers use them to cover their own butts.

There is NOTHING extra to be gained from a driver facing cam that cannot be seen in a forward facing one. If the driver fails to stop you will know that in the forward cam, it does not matter why he was distracted you simply know he was. All the driver facing cam allows for is more ammunition for companies to fire drivers.

I know for myself i have nothing to hide, however that does NOT mean i think its ok to put a cam in my face. I never eat while driving i do not smoke or anything of that nature, but i still do not want some desk jokey to download the last 20 seconds of video of a cam facing me and claim i am unsafe because i changed a radio station to took a sip of gatorade. There is also NO reason they need audio.

Remember, now days all these "Smart" devices we have, have cameras! Laptop,s new flat screen tv's and the like. So, if the "Men in Black", want to hack into your tv to be sure you're not building a bomb, in your living room. Hell the power companies, changed over to the new "smart" meters, another tool to "see" what you do within your own home..And possibly later control the amount of power you're "allowed" to consume...

Doesnt matter we like or not those cameras are coming and they can be nice and tell you they are there or they can hide them. At least if you know you can do the best you can and be done with it. And I did mean id have a cam in my direction also. If im in the wrong im in the wrong but if im not looking at maps or cutting my steak or reading a message on the qc any of which can wait and I watching the road my mirrors and my gauges and camera is going to show that. But you rear end a vehicle and just have a front facing camera and you just get a message from your dm or on your cell isnt it reasonable that someone can argue that you were checking said message even if you werent you were doing your job but you checked a mirror at the wrong time now who pays? You did your job and can not prove you were checking a mirror. If you had a driver cam you could prove it but you dont so now you pay cause of it. Is that to say they can not use against you no they can be and I am not dismissing that at all but I see where they can help and if people would stop and think instead of blowing up about it they may see the help in these. If done right and everyone here knows the first ones out are going to fail in some way they will help drivers be safer. Did the first qc's work like they were supposed to or the first iphone or the first android no the phones had bugs but they are working on them and cell phones have come a very long way in a very short time. So given time I think these cams will help drivers.

Big difference between cameras watching my dock ay Walmart vs watching me in my truck is choice. I don't have much of a choice with out side cameras, I do with the in cabs. I don't know where u got the big man stuff from. I am 1 trucker out of 2,500,000 nationwide. 1 trucker out of 178,000 OTR , 1 trucker out of 10,000 + at my company. Im not a big man, im a statistic. This man has only one option if he does not wish to be under constant A/V watch. Find another carrier who does not use this tech or go back to what I was doing before.

We are all being squeezed from both companies and government. Today the rights of groups overide the rights of a individual.

SWIFT has a lot of old truckers in the upper brass. I bet some of them don't even like this. They are being squeezed by government, the public and insurance cost. The government is being squeezed by the public and corporations. It's one big cluster ####.

Non of that maters to me. All I know is I will not live my life under 24 hour A/V watch unless I am held against my will in a prison.

Ok so I understand the argument for the safeties sake of the cameras, but will drivers be compensated for their loss of privacy? Which by the way is in fact "a right."

Okay. I think one of the biggest misunderstandings here is the 'fact' that you have no right to privacy in a job in America (USA).

Bill of rights "privacy"

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.

I have to leave for orientation; But I will definitely expand on that later, and point out some other misunderstandings in this thread from various persons.