Winseer:
yorkshire terrier:
Winseer:
yorkshire terrier:
daftvader:
There not limited to 52.But are advised to drive at that speed for fuel efficiency.
Yes that is true…
The fuel efficient driving was one of the reasons I got a bit fed up.
It monitors harsh braking etc and then they print a league table out every week with who is the most efficient driver.
The problem is the blue eyes getting 3 runs to Scotland and back a week are always top and the blokes doing the crap multi drop cant match that efficiency and therefore get less bonus.
The best way to measure driver effeciency is to divide the “gross profit made by the truck” by the “cost of the driver who drives it every day, including their wages, damage, & fuel usage”. That way, a multi-dropper will make up what they lose in stop-starts with the extra contracts per load. The biggest variable among the men and the boys would of course be “driving for a season without a scratch” and “Mr 9-points OK Biffa who has stacked 3 cars at roundabouts last week alone”. 
“Harsh Braking”? -
Bod A does an emergency stop, and due to A’s alertness and driving skills, not only was no load spilt, but a child’s life was saved when they ran out between parked cars… 
Bod B didn’t score any harsh brakes this quarter, but ploughed into someone on a zebra crossing without stopping. There was no damage to the truck, but the personal injury claim won by the person knocked over was more than a year’s wages for that driver. 
…I humbly suggest therefore, that “harsh braking” is a bullcrap method of measuring any kind of inherent driver skill. 
I agree that is the best way to measure efficiency but believe me they work to these methods.
I had a harsh brake on the A1 and got pulled in office about it and they got the exact spot where I harsh braked up on google earth and said this is a straight road there was no need to harsh brake,no matter what your reason for slamming on they say it can be avoided.
If this were possible, let alone legal, then the country would be full of pending prosecutions for traffic offences by drivers speeding in built-up areas - divined by the very software liasions you speak of here. As far as I am aware, Combining data from things like ISOTRAC (providing location @ time) and Tacho data (for speed @ time) constitutes a bugging device conducted without permission of the data owner (driver/DVLA) or home office warrent, and is therefore highly illegal.
Even MI5 would not be expected to spy on members of the public not suspected of terroist offences in this manner.
If I’m wrong here, and this is perfectly legal - then why have we heard of NO prosecutions by “black box” where some bod drove out of his cul-de-sac at 65mph one frosty morning when no one was about, but the data monitoring gear in the car…?
The system downton run is called microlise and honestly it monitors everything
The devil with such a thing would be a thorough description of it’s operation in their blurb on their website. Couldn’t find anything about it “connecting events like harsh braking to a moment and place in real time” though. This is big brother gone mad! The office staff can effectively play some kind of arcade game with that live data streaming in… There’s mention of Camera-on-driver aspect to it as well? - Are we talking cameras that look at the driver instead of out the front like a dashcam does?
This system still ain’t no good if the vehicle gets nicked though… “Joe Bloggs might tell the police right away, but all the softare is going to say is …Joe blogs just run a red light… Joe blogs just ran over a granny on a zebra crossing. Joe blogs stopped at some layby for a crafty ■■■.” etc etc.
Meanwhile, Joe Bloggs is trying to explain in person to his boss how come his combination got nicked when he’s got the keys in his pocket…
The microlise system that downton use is connected to the ECU the tacho and gps they can print out every part of the route you have taken down to the second and down to a cpl of meters . If in a prang it will tell them where the throttle was at the point of impact and at which point you braked . Although not used fully at Chatham yet it is fitted and monitored to get a bench mark on how we are doing to see how they can improve us. Agency drivers will also be monitored and if to much harshe breaking or high mpg the won’t be invited back . The police use the same system and are sent for retraining after a cpl of harsh breaking infringements . Downton are also considering adding camera’s to
chester1:
The microlise system that downton use is connected to the ECU the tacho and gps they can print out every part of the route you have taken down to the second and down to a cpl of meters . If in a prang it will tell them where the throttle was at the point of impact and at which point you braked . Although not used fully at Chatham yet it is fitted and monitored to get a bench mark on how we are doing to see how they can improve us. Agency drivers will also be monitored and if to much harshe breaking or high mpg the won’t be invited back . The police use the same system and are sent for retraining after a cpl of harsh breaking infringements . Downton are also considering adding camera’s to
What forward facing cameras or facing the driver.?..
I don’t think it’s a good idea to ever judge someone by their “look” or “style” rather than actual track-record results.
You could get one driver who never gets done for ‘harsh brakes’, always drives up someone’s arse, and has only got away with it so far because he’s a lucky boy racer. (Probably works for TNT) 
Then there’s the other driver who’s had zero accidents over 50 years of driving, but it’s because he potters along roads he knows, say Central London, but then gets thrown to the dogs when his job goes, and he’s moved to an area he’s not so familiar with, and gets kids running out between parked cars on him every damned day… Is it right to ■■■■ this driver for a sudden sharp increase in “harsh braking” incidents?
In yards where one driver gets the exclusive use of one particular tractor, it would make more sense to pay bonuses/penalise drivers for the amont of damage (including wear & tear), but capped at “losing that bonus” rather than this insidious practice I hear of where drivers have to pay for their own damage. Plenty would get their own tractor, and invoice said gaffer for double the amount - if that’s the way they want to play it. The responsibilities of the job should be proportional to the pay of the job. If I had to pay for my own damage to tractor & combinations, I’d want £25ph to compensate me for the additional financial risks to myself I’d be taking on. Without that, this is all just a way to push net wages below minimum wage by the backdoor. 
Winseer:
yorkshire terrier:
Winseer:
yorkshire terrier:
daftvader:
There not limited to 52.But are advised to drive at that speed for fuel efficiency.
Yes that is true…
The fuel efficient driving was one of the reasons I got a bit fed up.
It monitors harsh braking etc and then they print a league table out every week with who is the most efficient driver.
The problem is the blue eyes getting 3 runs to Scotland and back a week are always top and the blokes doing the crap multi drop cant match that efficiency and therefore get less bonus.
The best way to measure driver effeciency is to divide the “gross profit made by the truck” by the “cost of the driver who drives it every day, including their wages, damage, & fuel usage”. That way, a multi-dropper will make up what they lose in stop-starts with the extra contracts per load. The biggest variable among the men and the boys would of course be “driving for a season without a scratch” and “Mr 9-points OK Biffa who has stacked 3 cars at roundabouts last week alone”.
“Harsh Braking”? -
Bod A does an emergency stop, and due to A’s alertness and driving skills, not only was no load spilt, but a child’s life was saved when they ran out between parked cars…
Bod B didn’t score any harsh brakes this quarter, but ploughed into someone on a zebra crossing without stopping. There was no damage to the truck, but the personal injury claim won by the person knocked over was more than a year’s wages for that driver.
…I humbly suggest therefore, that “harsh braking” is a bullcrap method of measuring any kind of inherent driver skill.
I agree that is the best way to measure efficiency but believe me they work to these methods.
I had a harsh brake on the A1 and got pulled in office about it and they got the exact spot where I harsh braked up on google earth and said this is a straight road there was no need to harsh brake,no matter what your reason for slamming on they say it can be avoided.
If this were possible, let alone legal, then the country would be full of pending prosecutions for traffic offences by drivers speeding in built-up areas - divined by the very software liasions you speak of here. As far as I am aware, Combining data from things like ISOTRAC (providing location @ time) and Tacho data (for speed @ time) constitutes a bugging device conducted without permission of the data owner (driver/DVLA) or home office warrent, and is therefore highly illegal.
Even MI5 would not be expected to spy on members of the public not suspected of terroist offences in this manner.
If I’m wrong here, and this is perfectly legal - then why have we heard of NO prosecutions by “black box” where some bod drove out of his cul-de-sac at 65mph one frosty morning when no one was about, but the data monitoring gear in the car…?
It is perfectly legal. the owner of the truck has every right to monitor the vehicle and the drivers performance. It could only be a bugging device if it was fitted to your private vehicle without your knowledge or consent, and then it would be debateable as to the legality or not. Privacy laws in this country are vague at best. As for speeding, the accuracy of the information gathered isn’t as accurate as your employer may lead you to believe, and certainly can’t be used as evidence.
Yes, I suppose it could be palmed off on the workforce if they’d “signed up to it” thus giving permission for the office wallers to watch drivers scratching their nuts or whatever at the wheel.
F— that. If that’s on the contract, I won’t be signing it, and I’ll just move onto the next yard who wants a safe driver instead of an untrusted one.
If I’m assigned work somewhere where I have not signed up to be spied upon (camera looking at me, instead of out the front) then I’ll do what I can to switch the offending technology off, and if that gets me banned from site, then so be it. 
Monitoring the truck performance is one thing. Monitoring me personally is something quite different, and seems very 1984 to me.
I imagine there are already a large number of drivers who’ve been sacked for offences like driving one-handed whilst scratching ■■■■■■■■, or the more likely scenario of being on one’s own mobile whilst driving. At least the latter has a “law of the land” sense about it. I hear VOSA are looking to convict drivers from taking swigs out of red bull whilst driving, or taking a bite of one’s Yorkie bar as well. Since there are very few VOSA tractors running around filming sideways at truckers, I’d have to assume that most of their “convicting data” will be coming from footage supplied by the yard. No love lost there then. If your firm doesn’t think much of you before you’ve actually done anything wrong, then I don’t think I want to stay there long enough to feel the full weight of such a loveless employer should I ever actually DO something wrong much later on… 
Winseer:
Yes, I suppose it could be palmed off on the workforce if they’d “signed up to it” thus giving permission for the office wallers to watch drivers scratching their nuts or whatever at the wheel.
F— that. If that’s on the contract, I won’t be signing it, and I’ll just move onto the next yard who wants a safe driver instead of an untrusted one.
If I’m assigned work somewhere where I have not signed up to be spied upon (camera looking at me, instead of out the front) then I’ll do what I can to switch the offending technology off, and if that gets me banned from site, then so be it.
Monitoring the truck performance is one thing. Monitoring me personally is something quite different, and seems very 1984 to me.
I imagine there are already a large number of drivers who’ve been sacked for offences like driving one-handed whilst scratching ■■■■■■■■, or the more likely scenario of being on one’s own mobile whilst driving. At least the latter has a “law of the land” sense about it. I hear VOSA are looking to convict drivers from taking swigs out of red bull whilst driving, or taking a bite of one’s Yorkie bar as well. Since there are very few VOSA tractors running around filming sideways at truckers, I’d have to assume that most of their “convicting data” will be coming from footage supplied by the yard. No love lost there then. If your firm doesn’t think much of you before you’ve actually done anything wrong, then I don’t think I want to stay there long enough to feel the full weight of such a loveless employer should I ever actually DO something wrong much later on…
Telematics are used by my employer to improve fuel economy, and nothing else. We get feedback from the company, and, so far it has worked. I have never heard of any employer that uses cameras in the cab to watch the driver, though some truck manufacturers have developed a system the can detect when your attention is wandering (by watching your eyes) in order to prevent drivers falling asleep at the wheel. As for loveless companies, we are well looked after - real sick pay, DCPC training, profit share, time off or at home without question. VOSA have no remit to prosecute drivers for eating or drinking - that would be driving without due care and attention, a police matter.
Comets delivery trucks had driver facing cameras in the cab before they went ■■■■ up
Winseer:
“Harsh Braking”? -
Bod A does an emergency stop, and due to A’s alertness and driving skills, not only was no load spilt, but a child’s life was saved when they ran out between parked cars…
Bod B didn’t score any harsh brakes this quarter, but ploughed into someone on a zebra crossing without stopping. There was no damage to the truck, but the personal injury claim won by the person knocked over was more than a year’s wages for that driver.
…I humbly suggest therefore, that “harsh braking” is a bullcrap method of measuring any kind of inherent driver skill.
I would humbly suggest that you don’t understand why harsh braking is looked at as a measure of a “good” driver. “Harsh braking” doesn’t just mean “Emergency stops” - It looks at any occasion when the vehicle speed has reduced by more than a preset amount over a few seconds (as a result, it cannot register a “harsh brake” during low-speed manouvres - e.g. when coupling up etc) it’s a measure of how effective he is at “reading” the road conditions ahead and adjusting his speed etc accordingly so that, in the vast majority of situations, he never needs to do an emergency stop anyway.
Roymondo:
I would humbly suggest that you don’t understand why harsh braking is looked at as a measure of a “good” driver. “Harsh braking” doesn’t just mean “Emergency stops” - It looks at any occasion when the vehicle speed has reduced by more than a preset amount over a few seconds (as a result, it cannot register a “harsh brake” during low-speed manouvres - e.g. when coupling up etc) it’s a measure of how effective he is at “reading” the road conditions ahead and adjusting his speed etc accordingly so that, in the vast majority of situations, he never needs to do an emergency stop anyway.
Spot on. Whilst I agree that the unexpected happens from time to time requiring an emergency stop, I would contend that over 90% of emergency stops are the result of not enough forward planning by drivers.
I was thinking about emergency stops the other day and I reckon that the last one I did was back in the early 1990’s, and that was probably as a result of me being a teararse incapable of seeing past the brake lights of the vehicle in front!
Winseer:
Even MI5 would not be expected to spy on members of the public not suspected of terroist offences in this manner.
If I’m wrong here, and this is perfectly legal - then why have we heard of NO prosecutions by “black box” where some bod drove out of his cul-de-sac at 65mph one frosty morning when no one was about, but the data monitoring gear in the car…?
Because prosecution of speeding offences requires corroboration under UK Law (It is specifically written into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). In addition, evidence from automatic devices - such as speed cameras - can only be used if they are of a type approved by the Home Office (and are used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions - which form part of the HO approval).
our telematics monitor harsh braking and harsh accelerating. For instance, if you’re driving in Milton Keynes you will cross a lot of roundabouts. We are encouraged to accelerate gently away from one roundabout, and then allow our speed to fall of gradually up to the next. This uses less fuel than charging from one to the next.
Roymondo:
Winseer:
“Harsh Braking”? -
Bod A does an emergency stop, and due to A’s alertness and driving skills, not only was no load spilt, but a child’s life was saved when they ran out between parked cars…
Bod B didn’t score any harsh brakes this quarter, but ploughed into someone on a zebra crossing without stopping. There was no damage to the truck, but the personal injury claim won by the person knocked over was more than a year’s wages for that driver.
…I humbly suggest therefore, that “harsh braking” is a bullcrap method of measuring any kind of inherent driver skill.
I would humbly suggest that you don’t understand why harsh braking is looked at as a measure of a “good” driver. “Harsh braking” doesn’t just mean “Emergency stops” - It looks at any occasion when the vehicle speed has reduced by more than a preset amount over a few seconds (as a result, it cannot register a “harsh brake” during low-speed manouvres - e.g. when coupling up etc) it’s a measure of how effective he is at “reading” the road conditions ahead and adjusting his speed etc accordingly so that, in the vast majority of situations, he never needs to do an emergency stop anyway.
I don’t have harsh brake events now. But I am somewhat paranoid that as soon as a time comes when I somehow get penalised for having them - they are going to happen often! I don’t like any T&Cs that are “negative re-enforcement” you see. “Do your job well, and you get nothing extra. Do your job less than well, and you’ll be in trouble” kind of thing". I would measure a “good driver” by a lack of blameworthy incidents all around, rather than just harsh braking, which hides a multitide of other sins if one is not careful. I don’t tailgate, smoke in cabs, or speed - but I do have the radio on when on an open road, drive with my high-viz off, and drive more aggresively in rush hour traffic than I otherwise would. Thus, do I get to be a bad driver or not?
25 years of professional driving without so much as pranging someone at a roundabout would suggest to me that I have the good scores in areas that count, and thus I prefer to continue to be judged on results, rather than incidents that could be put down to “bad luck” such as “kids running out” that I have described. Someone on a trunk run all major roads is unlikely to ever get any incidents - right? - But what about a London specialist like myself, who might one day be asked to drive that well in a strange city to me like Glasgow? Maybe I’m just being paranoid. The high tech systems just seem too negatively re-enforced the way it is going that’s all.
You can see why they want to do it as there is big savings to be made on fuel. If the mob I work for are willing to put £100 a month my way just imagin wat they are saving in fuel never mind wear and tare reduced ins claims ect
Winseer:
I don’t like any T&Cs that are “negative re-enforcement” you see. “Do your job well, and you get nothing extra. Do your job less than well, and you’ll be in trouble” kind of thing".
I think the problems start to arise when the “harsh braking bonus” (or whatever a given employer chooses to call it) is seen as a standard part of the wage - especially if it forms a significant chunk of a driver’s weekly or monthly take-home. In those circumstances, a driver who doesn’t get the bonus in a particular week/month will see himself as being unfairly penalised for something that may have been completely out of his control.
We have a harsh braking bonus where I work - but it’s only a couple of hundred pounds paid out twice a year. So it’s a nice little “perk” without anyone getting to rely on it every month just to pay the bills etc. In our scheme the bonus is calculated on a daily basis, so if I do get the occasional “Darwin Award candidate” rushing out into my path, it’s no biggie as I only lose a quid or two off my bonus.
I see your point about city vs trunking runs etc - but our figures are pretty much the same across all depots, even though one of them does mostly runs into that there Lunnon.
Now you’re talking… That is all about POSITIVE re-enforcement. Getting a bonuns on top of a standard wage that doesn’t fall below a certain level. This would be especially good if the basic wage is one of the better ones out there as well of course. 
you can get HARSH BRAKING 