Driver facing cameras

albion:
Save quoting Rob, our insurers don’t require tracking, any cameras out are in facing and I get an excellent deal on my insurance.

I wouldn’t argue that one day they will be compulsory, but let’s just say for the last two years I haven’t needed to work and it’s made a cantankerous, obdurate woman, even more cantankerous and obdurate. :laughing:

I can promise you would lose that bet, take it if you want, but as I say it would be unfair as I’m the one that is in charge of the outcome. :sunglasses:

But I didn’t say it was happening now, did I ? I said in the not-too-distant future and I stand by that. Of course there are a near infinite number of insurers who will insure without them now, because it’s still a relatively new thing, but you’d have to be naive in the extreme to believe it’s not the thin end of the wedge and they will become the norm in years to come. Rewind the clock just 5 years and how many of the companies today had driver facing CCTV? Did Maritime or Ocado have them 5 years ago? I don’t know for sure, but I’m going to take a guess and say not. Those are just 2 companies that have been in the limelight recently and there are many more. Another 5 years and I reckon all the supermarkets will have them along with DHL, Wincanton, Stobrats, Marshalls and most of the other big logistics players, along with many smaller companies.

albion:
our insurers don’t require tracking, any cameras out are in facing and I get an excellent deal on my insurance.

That doesn’t make an awful lot of sense.

Rob K:
Funny, I remember an owner driver of old make a similar bet with me on here and ended up with egg on his face around 5 years later. I’m still awaiting the £1000 from him.

But only in your imagination. :wink: :wink:

I would imagine that this will come you won’t have a choice the insurers will insist, any excuse to avoid a payout.

We had this discussion with the management via the unions a couple of years ago and it was decided that forward facing and nearside would be sufficient.

Look at it from an employers point of view the imbecilic ■■■■ flinging monkeys that drive the things nowadays need to be monitored.

Roymondo:

albion:
our insurers don’t require tracking, any cameras out are in facing and I get an excellent deal on my insurance.

That doesn’t make an awful lot of sense.

Phat finger, should read out or in facing.

Rob K:

albion:
Save quoting Rob, our insurers don’t require tracking, any cameras out are in facing and I get an excellent deal on my insurance.

I wouldn’t argue that one day they will be compulsory, but let’s just say for the last two years I haven’t needed to work and it’s made a cantankerous, obdurate woman, even more cantankerous and obdurate. :laughing:

I can promise you would lose that bet, take it if you want, but as I say it would be unfair as I’m the one that is in charge of the outcome. :sunglasses:

But I didn’t say it was happening now, did I ? I said in the not-too-distant future and I stand by that. Of course there are a near infinite number of insurers who will insure without them now, because it’s still a relatively new thing, but you’d have to be naive in the extreme to believe it’s not the thin end of the wedge and they will become the norm in years to come. Rewind the clock just 5 years and how many of the companies today had driver facing CCTV? Did Maritime or Ocado have them 5 years ago? I don’t know for sure, but I’m going to take a guess and say not. Those are just 2 companies that have been in the limelight recently and there are many more. Another 5 years and I reckon all the supermarkets will have them along with DHL, Wincanton, Stobrats, Marshalls and most of the other big logistics players, along with many smaller companies.

I’m not disagreeing that it will happen, but I haven’t even been asked to fit out facing yet. But anyway, the bicker started with you telling me I WILL be fitting them and me saying, nah.

albion:
But anyway, the bicker started with you telling me I WILL be fitting them and me saying, nah.

In that case you won’t be in business any longer as they are coming and they will eventually be mandatory for insurance.

Rob K:

albion:
But anyway, the bicker started with you telling me I WILL be fitting them and me saying, nah.

In that case you won’t be in business any longer as they are coming and they will eventually be mandatory for insurance.

You are right, but I wasn’t planning on working when I was 70, or not in this business anyway.

I was told years ago it would be compulsory to have outward facing and I’m still waiting. One day it will be, but it really is taking it’s time.

Night Rob.

Insurance companies introduced the little black box to lower your car premiums years ago,it was supposed to be for new drivers,got round everybody would soon have one to monitor your driving habits.
I haven’t got one,Insurance companies want your business they may lower your premiums a little for having software but they ain’t gunna turn your money down if you don’t have it.

eagerbeaver:

albion:
Save quoting Rob, our insurers don’t require tracking, any cameras out are in facing and I get an excellent deal on my insurance.

I wouldn’t argue that one day they will be compulsory, but let’s just say for the last two years I haven’t needed to work and it’s made a cantankerous, obdurate woman, even more cantankerous and obdurate. :laughing:

I can promise you would lose that bet, take it if you want, but as I say it would be unfair as I’m the one that is in charge of the outcome. :sunglasses:

Two people involved in this post.

One is afraid & can’t see through the fog. The other one runs a business and if for WHATEVER reason things change, they will simply diversify & crack on…

I don’t think I’ll peak EB, until you’ve added one of my uniforms to the pile, until then I’ve failed in life. :frowning: :laughing:

albion:

Rob K:

albion:
But anyway, the bicker started with you telling me I WILL be fitting them and me saying, nah.

In that case you won’t be in business any longer as they are coming and they will eventually be mandatory for insurance.

You are right, but I wasn’t planning on working when I was 70, or not in this business anyway.

I was told years ago it would be compulsory to have outward facing and I’m still waiting. One day it will be, but it really is taking it’s time.

Night Rob.

Insurance companies have been offering much reduced premiums for years for having dashcams installed. It’s not difficult to see what the next step will be. Again, rewind 5 or 10 years and tot up how many companies had them installed (front facing ones). Not many. The company I did most of my work for never had them and it’s only be a relatively recent thing (5 years ish). If you find yourself faced with a minimum of several thousand pounds difference in your insurance premiums and hours ringing round other companies for better quotes does not improve the situation then my hat goes off to you if you stand your ground and stomach the couple of grand additional cost so you can stick to your principles, but I think the reality is that it’ll be your ■■■■■ that has the final word. :bulb:

albion:

Winseer:
What would be more interesting legally, is if it is possible to “sack a driver” for going out of their way to sabotage the driver-facing camera…

Eg. Stick a bit of masking tape over the cabeye, but leave all the outside ones working normally…

I think yes. We don’t and won’t be getting them, I send them out so I don’t have to look at them. :wink: However (leaving aside Juddians thoughts on the management right to have them in the cab), the scenario would be.

Inward facing cameras installed, everyone huffs and puffs.
One driver covers camera up, gets a call to say, you possibly don’t realise but…
Next time it’s in the office for a chat
Then a formal warning, or two
Then goodbye.

If it isn’t illegal, then you can argue all you want, but it won’t go anywhere.

And as they become more common, which they are, it’s harder to argue against them.

Personally, I agree with Juddian (as usual).

Covering them up I would agree yes as its interfering with company property.

However I would be more interested if they called, to ask why they had checked the camera. When I worked in a supermarket we were only authorised to review the footage in the event of an incident or complaint being made. Or if we had genuine belief there was a breach of company policy or law. We were NOT allowed to just sit watching “looking” on the off chance for something to happen. To do so would be a breach of data protection act and I assume (left last year) the gdpr

kcrussell25:

albion:

Winseer:
What would be more interesting legally, is if it is possible to “sack a driver” for going out of their way to sabotage the driver-facing camera…

Eg. Stick a bit of masking tape over the cabeye, but leave all the outside ones working normally…

I think yes. We don’t and won’t be getting them, I send them out so I don’t have to look at them. :wink: However (leaving aside Juddians thoughts on the management right to have them in the cab), the scenario would be.

Inward facing cameras installed, everyone huffs and puffs.
One driver covers camera up, gets a call to say, you possibly don’t realise but…
Next time it’s in the office for a chat
Then a formal warning, or two
Then goodbye.

If it isn’t illegal, then you can argue all you want, but it won’t go anywhere.

And as they become more common, which they are, it’s harder to argue against them.

Personally, I agree with Juddian (as usual).

Covering them up I would agree yes as its interfering with company property.

However I would be more interested if they called, to ask why they had checked the camera. When I worked in a supermarket we were only authorised to review the footage in the event of an incident or complaint being made. Or if we had genuine belief there was a breach of company policy or law. We were NOT allowed to just sit watching “looking” on the off chance for something to happen. To do so would be a breach of data protection act and I assume (left last year) the gdpr

Interesting point.
But wouldn’t some sort of periodic review of recordings be necessary to ensure that the camera is actually working correctly?

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

Franglais:

kcrussell25:

albion:

Winseer:
What would be more interesting legally, is if it is possible to “sack a driver” for going out of their way to sabotage the driver-facing camera…

Eg. Stick a bit of masking tape over the cabeye, but leave all the outside ones working normally…

I think yes. We don’t and won’t be getting them, I send them out so I don’t have to look at them. :wink: However (leaving aside Juddians thoughts on the management right to have them in the cab), the scenario would be.

Inward facing cameras installed, everyone huffs and puffs.
One driver covers camera up, gets a call to say, you possibly don’t realise but…
Next time it’s in the office for a chat
Then a formal warning, or two
Then goodbye.

If it isn’t illegal, then you can argue all you want, but it won’t go anywhere.

And as they become more common, which they are, it’s harder to argue against them.

Personally, I agree with Juddian (as usual).

Covering them up I would agree yes as its interfering with company property.

However I would be more interested if they called, to ask why they had checked the camera. When I worked in a supermarket we were only authorised to review the footage in the event of an incident or complaint being made. Or if we had genuine belief there was a breach of company policy or law. We were NOT allowed to just sit watching “looking” on the off chance for something to happen. To do so would be a breach of data protection act and I assume (left last year) the gdpr

Interesting point.
But wouldn’t some sort of periodic review of recordings be necessary to ensure that the camera is actually working correctly?

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

Yes it would need checking but how often? Weekly at most I expect? Even that should be a it works and off again. I would have thought that anything more than that would be to much

Wouldn’t a random occasional check, such as you described, show up an obstruction to the lens?

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

i’m a DHL driver,but no mention of driver facing cameras yet.but the outward facing cameras saw the downfall of one of our drivers last week.after a minor bump with a bollard,he got out of his cab and the camera spotted him with a ■■■ hanging out the side of his gob…black mark on him! then another 2 weeks on,another silly mistake,and he got the bullet.

carryfast-yeti:
i’m a DHL driver,but no mention of driver facing cameras yet.but the outward facing cameras saw the downfall of one of our drivers last week.after a minor bump with a bollard,he got out of his cab and the camera spotted him with a ■■■ hanging out the side of his gob…black mark on him! then another 2 weeks on,another silly mistake,and he got the bullet.

■■■■■■■ good! Stinking ■■■■■

Franglais:
Wouldn’t a random occasional check, such as you described, show up an obstruction to the lens?

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

Yes it would. I wonder if they would think fast enough to say it when on the phone though…

It will prove interesting when firms persist more and more in getting staff to re-sign ammended versions of their initial contracts of employment - especially since the recent data protection crackdown.

I’m one of those people who resists signing anything that is totally downside for me, and no upside whatsoever.

I remember over the years items like “If you go onto monthly from weekly pay, we’ll give you a £1000 one-off sweetner” - I was up for that, but Union said no and we ended up all on monthly pay ANYWAY, but with no grand thrown at us!

Then there’s “Please sign this to confirm the firm has the right to use your data for any reason they see fit. The data, once gathered by the firm becomes theirs, and whilst you retain rights under data protection to view any data held about you - you may NOT tell others collecting your data to delete it”

F… that. If someone has already stolen my data under false pretences to start with, then the very last thing I’m going to do is “give permission” to hurl that data about further afield.

What next? - Someone finds out where I live, and being the popular soul that I am - I get firebombed at home?

I retain “Right to be Paranoid” then. :stuck_out_tongue: :smiling_imp:

Outside firms on websites of course will attempt to steal your data in that they’ll:-

(1) Help themselves to it :unamused:
(2) Ask you to “stay on this page” or “click anywhere” to “give permission for us to keep and distribute your data forever”. :angry:
(3) Refuse to delete your data upon your request. Demand that you get a court order to make them. :imp:
(4) Effectively “ban you from site” (!) if you do not comply with their attempts to harvest “Permissions” from you. :frowning:

This latter (4) point is just another attempt to take the Internet private of course, at which point it becomes Big Brother… Companies can steal and act with impunity, but you try and get anything out of a company - and it will always be “possession is nine tenths of the law”… “We’ve stolen your data, it is now ours unless you can afford to sue us to make us take it down”.

Examples of the type of data abuse that can follow might include things like:

(1) You are recently divorced. Ex gets to find out from their solicitor that you’ve made a few “big ticket” purchases recently, implying that the settlement being sought can thus be bumped up somewhat… “If Ex Hubby now has a jag, I want half of that value added to my settlement in progress!”

(2) You have recently declared bankruptcy. You’re supposed to stick all assets in your name into the pot, with the receiver allowing one to retain only low-value assets. This means once again, expose that flash purchase - and it’ll effectively be confiscated from you!

(3) Applying for Credit. Despite the fact that credit reference agencies are supposed to remove data over six years old as standard, there is no force on earth that will get them to remove data originally put there by a company or person that no longer exists. “They” own the data, and they no longer exist to be asked permission to take it down. Thus, someone can put “John Smith took a loan off Robert Maxwell, and thus John Smith owes all the debts of the Late Robert Maxwell, debts to be pursued against John Smith forever and ever amen”. (Makes no difference - until you try applying for a mortgage in particular! - Life ruining if you have not got that far in your life yet - Ouch!)

(4) Moving House? - The crap follows you, but not the good stuff should you not quite effectively tell everyone you’ve moved. I still get the occasional pension letter relating to the previous occupants for example…

(5) “Footprint” - I recommend filling in no forms unless there is an actual advantage to be had from signing such. Everyone and his dog wants your data - and your permission to own it forthwith forever after… Buying something in a shop? - Don’t bloody sign anything, especially “Free” stuff like Maintencence contracts, or anything with the dreaded words “This does not affect your statutory rights” Yeh right like f— does it! Applying for finance or getting a job - seems to me to be the only time I should be signing any forms…

(6) Paying someone else’s bills for them. Just don’t even go there! There is no limit to online attempts to “allign” data so that YOU are somehow responisble for someone else…
If the previous occupant has a criminal record, bad credit, used the same IP address as you, worked at the same place, has a bank account where you bank. The openings for “Phishing” are endless.
You can even get “phishers” offering to “delete all adverse data for a fee” - which is of course, what puts people on a mug list. Never pay for anything involving “data” - or you’ll be mugged forever!

On that last point, I remember when I first moved into my current address, I got a big telephone bill from BT, whom I’ve not personally been with for years and years. They told me in no uncertain terms that if I “refused to pay”, then I would have the adverse credit put on my file. I never did end up paying it - but they sure kept their promise to adversely affect my file! - Good job I live within my means these days, and have long since weaned myself off the need to “borrow cash”. If I can’t afford it out of my earnings - I don’t have it.

“Someone once at the same address is not me”
“An IP address is not a person, least of all me”
“someone with the same name elsewhere - is not me”
“Someone pretending to be me to take out a loan in my name - is not me, and I won’t be settling that debt, nor paying to have my record updated to remove the false data”

As for outfits like so-called “Credit Reference Agencies” - they are the very worst of the “data thieves” of course - but no longer able to do one damage - unless one ever wants to borrow money at some point in the future. The way they abuse today’s youngsters, in particular University leavers - is downright disgusting! They will be needing credit at some point in their futures you see… And that is when and where they have those students over a barrel for life!

The concept I would like to introduce to everyone here is

“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

It is easier to lie, cheat, steal from, and ruin someone who has “middle of the road” Brains, “Middle of the road” Wealth, and “middle of the road” ambitions.
This, also goes hand-in-hand with “It is impossible to con an honest person”. It is people trying to get stuff for free that ends up with them being sucked into this Socialist Honeytrap, even if you thought you were diametrically opposite “Socialism” as a polticial concept…

Look at the poster below… What do you see? - “Get what you pay for” - Very unpopular. “Free Anything? - Go out of your way to get it.” and sign your life away in the process, no doubt!

Why Socialism fails - and Data Mining Suceeds!.png

“Data Harvesting” is the Totalitarian State’s power base. Do not aid and abet those who’d ruin your life, especially Theresa May’s Conservatives trying to force-feed us on her version of “Labour Lite” to counter Tony Blair’s “Tory Lite” time in office… :bulb: