There still won’t be anyone watching, that’s paranoia. They trigger by large G-force changes and save a minute on either side. After a while the systems blank out certain areas like a rough set of train tracks. Really if you’re a safe driver the odds are better the video will exonerate you than show negligence.
Flick 'em on the camera!
That’s just silly talk. In the truck you’re in public, literally everyone you interact with is carrying a camera, most buildings you’re in are wired, a growing number of residences are getting doorbell cameras, many passenger vehicles have dash cams. You’re on video all day everyday.
There is no good reason for driver facing camera's that I can think of. I stand to be corrected however.
Had a Linehaul guy around here pulling an empty through the mountains. Wind flipped him on his side. Driver camera showed him driving with hands at 10 and 2 paying attention. He didn’t get disqualified for an at-fault roll over.
Hands at 9 and 3 is the new 10 and 2.
Cool story bro.
You said wind flipped him on his side. I assume that was proven through investigation. If his hands weren't at 10 and 2, and he was picking his nose, as @Operational needs is known to do, would he have been at fault then, or would it still have been heavy wind?
I don’t know. They have the tractors wired up with many cameras. The ones facing down the sides showed the wind pushing the trailer over. I imagine safety would have a different determination if the driver had his hands off the wheel not paying attention in inclement weather.
Should have anticipated the wind; at fault accident.
Correct, because of steering wheel airbags.
I'll agree, when every computer has real time video capture. Why the continued effort to bust the humps ass that brings in the actual revenue?
Probably because people are so litigious these days it'll put blame on driver rather than company if a bad accident occurs.
I think you missed my point.
You're right, because that's where the money is. But with a conservative court, and constant lobbying of Congress, not a stretch to see down the road that the onus is put on the employee, rather than the company, if the company can prove it was irresponsible employee behavior that caused an accident. It's always about the money when companies do stuff like this. They aren't spending serious money just because they want to intrude on an employee's privacy. Bad employees often cause them a lot money, and they want to root out any who might. Or protect themselves in litigation.
We agree on most things, but I will have to disagree with your analysis here. The company will always be the respondent. A driver may have criminal exposure.
We agree on most things, but I will have to disagree with your analysis here. The company will always be the respondent. A driver may have criminal exposure.
You guys don’t have backup cameras?
