Driver facing cameras

Rob K:

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:

Rob, there’s no ringing round. There’s only two that will insure us. I have been round this whole if you do this, then your insurance premiums will drop, scenario before.

Because we carry high value kit, we were very early adopters of trackers and one of the selling points was the reduction on the insurance. Nothing, nix, nada. I suspect reductions might happen if you have terrible claims history and you fit cameras and a year later having analysed Fred yawning and Joe reading War and Peace, taking action and seeing a reduction in accidents, then you would probably get a few grand off.

But on the subject of money, I have never been money motivated. I’m one of those people that as long as they have enough is happy. Business minded people will tell me I’ve made some shocking business decisions, but I value service and relationships over cost. Naturally there is a point at which I may feel I was being ripped off, but I don’t seek low cost for the sake of it. I really could pay drivers less, but we are back to the relationship concept again. Trust me, losing several grand, if it were to even happen, wouldn’t really bother me.

kcrussell25:

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…

I would think that (and I’m only surmising), that if the vehicle is on tracker, and an event was triggered, say harsh braking, that would be grounds to review footage from inside. Overspeeds maybe, probably other things the corporates can make a case for.

albion:

kcrussell25:

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…

I would think that (and I’m only surmising), that if the vehicle is on tracker, and an event was triggered, say harsh braking, that would be grounds to review footage from inside. Overspeeds maybe, probably other things the corporates can make a case for.

Would one be enough? Just throwing it out there. Has to “be proportional” monitoring. I’m not sure one would be. Though repeated would defiantly be. Since fees were scrapped for tribunals this sort of thing could get very expensive for employers at minimal risk to the employee

albion:

kcrussell25:

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…

I would think that (and I’m only surmising), that if the vehicle is on tracker, and an event was triggered, say harsh braking, that would be grounds to review footage from inside. Overspeeds maybe, probably other things the corporates can make a case for.

The rumour mill has it that we may soon have cameras at our place. I dont know if they could be external or inward facing. Ive already fitted an external camera I have no big worries about them, although I currently have the option of chucking mine over the hedge if I sin!

Given that Albion Trucking has only a limited choice of insurers, I can imagine that it may be a non-issue so far. Heres a couple of thoughts*: In a more ordinary company, where costs are required to be kept down to remain competitive: insurance premiums being lower may be needed to stay in the game? Would drivers accept that a company paying higher insurance costs, may consequently pay less wages? I dont any figures and havent a clue what amounts are involved? Not a lot per driver per year compared with wage surely? Would a company willingly effectively pay a premium to retain driver goodwill? Could be cheaper than a significant pay rise? If Albion Trucking was required to have cameras (remembering that you have little choice in insurers) would the management decide to go with it, to keep going, or decide to fold it up? I guess its asking would cameras be the final straw for the company, and how would the drivers feel about that? Leaving an ordinary company because of cameras is different to leaving a good company.

I did find that when I installed my own camera I became even calmer and cooler than before, “ever more perfect”! Knowing that any indiscretions will be recorded seems to reduce the chances of them happening. Many trials show that the way to reduce “crime” is to increase the odds of detection. If we think we can “get away with it” we are more likely to do wrong.
The thought of inward facing cameras makes me slightly uncomfortable, but I really dont feel as strongly as many here seem to. If we do get inward facing cameras, I dont yet know how I`ll react.

  • No answers required of course! Just musing on the edges of the issue.

Winseer:
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!

Random tin foil hat garbage, you should actually read up on personal data, its uses,your rights and recourse to justice before you post this kind of ■■■■.
I think everyone gets your agenda but you do undermine it somewhat with your dramatised bullet pointing.
The only one I will bother with because it’s not laden with paranoid politically driven rants is your alleged BT experience… the last 2 houses I bought for renovation and rental both got sent bills as soon as I became owner due to them previously being rental properties, one from Npower and one from British Gas demanding outstanding bill payment, I contacted them and refused but explaining why, was asked to send proof by way of financial documentation which I refused to do as it’s not their right to hold such info and was threatened with recovery procedures.
I just got my solicitor to send letters confirming sale and date and problem was solved with letters from both confirming such.
I can’t help but feel that any issues you have are self inflicted, as I said, do some reading up about your rights before launching into posting some of this stuff, yes you have a right to an opinion but i don’t don’t think you have the right to misinform in order to promote your agenda.
For anyone who’s digested Winseers rant and is now utterly paranoid about being a number and therefore ending up whittling spoons in a mud hut because normal society might want to know something about you if you want a mortgage etc, then speak to a solicitor or just have a scout around the internet and you will find all you need to know about data, your rights, others rights and how the regulations have been developed in recent years due to courts cases etc. Article 29 Working Party Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment on ‘Google Spain and inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González’ c-131/121 (WP 225 ) was I believe one such case that helped.
Of course if Winseer is telling the truth and actually following his own advice about not being a number or staying away from credit agencies etc then he wouldn’t have a house, a driving licence, a passport or the right to vote ( there’s irony ), he of course does have these so take from that what you will.
I take from it that the internet is a very good place for him to let off steam rather than the local high street armed with a sandwich board and a megaphone on a Saturday afternoon competing for airtime with “Special Brew Dave” and some fella sat on his coat with a recorder and a wolf on a rope.

Why is it in the insurance companies interest to fit cameras?
Don’t they have to pay out…if your on the phone when you wipe a family of 4 out?

kcrussell25:

albion:

kcrussell25:

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…

I would think that (and I’m only surmising), that if the vehicle is on tracker, and an event was triggered, say harsh braking, that would be grounds to review footage from inside. Overspeeds maybe, probably other things the corporates can make a case for.

Would one be enough? Just throwing it out there. Has to “be proportional” monitoring. I’m not sure one would be. Though repeated would defiantly be. Since fees were scrapped for tribunals this sort of thing could get very expensive for employers at minimal risk to the employee

I’m playing devil’s advocate here, I’m no expert, but I’d suggest if it was one event, an employer could say it was so unusual they were concerned for the health and safety of the driver. If harsh braking was frequent, then it would be monitoring so they could learn why and send a driver on a training course, blah, blah.

Once the first couple of cases have been hammered out in court as to what is and isn’t allowed, there’ll be some airtight policies in place.

commonrail:
Why is it in the insurance companies interest to fit cameras?
Don’t they have to pay out…if your on the phone when you wipe a family of 4 out?

Insurance companies dont have much of a political agenda, and their underwriters(?) are motivated by money. If they can gain business by dropping rates after specifying fitting of cameras, thats what they are after. Given that cameras and driver monitoring have been around for years now, I suggest that the figures will back up their decisions.
If we can agree on that long winded analysis (not directed at you especially, just laying background), then maybe you`re asking why cameras mean insurance companies gain a financial advantage in having their clients have cameras?

I think that having a camera watching you, (not a covert camera) will change your behaviour. A perfect driver, such as you and I, wouldnt do anything wrong under any circumstances, but some do indulge in dodgy practices. Knowing that they will be punished in the event of an accident should prevent some bad practice. It wont work for all drivers all the time, but if the insurers are genuinely seeing a difference in those vehicles equipped and those not camera equipped, then there is little to argue with about effectiveness*. It may not be about wriggling out of claims, but be about prevention?

*Argue about whether or not you choose to pay extra, for privacy etc, but I don`t expect there is much scope for arguing the figures.

Franglais:

albion:

kcrussell25:

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…

I would think that (and I’m only surmising), that if the vehicle is on tracker, and an event was triggered, say harsh braking, that would be grounds to review footage from inside. Overspeeds maybe, probably other things the corporates can make a case for.

The rumour mill has it that we may soon have cameras at our place. I dont know if they could be external or inward facing. Ive already fitted an external camera I have no big worries about them, although I currently have the option of chucking mine over the hedge if I sin!

Given that Albion Trucking has only a limited choice of insurers, I can imagine that it may be a non-issue so far. Heres a couple of thoughts*: In a more ordinary company, where costs are required to be kept down to remain competitive: insurance premiums being lower may be needed to stay in the game? Would drivers accept that a company paying higher insurance costs, may consequently pay less wages? I dont any figures and havent a clue what amounts are involved? Not a lot per driver per year compared with wage surely? Would a company willingly effectively pay a premium to retain driver goodwill? Could be cheaper than a significant pay rise? If Albion Trucking was required to have cameras (remembering that you have little choice in insurers) would the management decide to go with it, to keep going, or decide to fold it up? I guess its asking would cameras be the final straw for the company, and how would the drivers feel about that? Leaving an ordinary company because of cameras is different to leaving a good company.

I did find that when I installed my own camera I became even calmer and cooler than before, “ever more perfect”! Knowing that any indiscretions will be recorded seems to reduce the chances of them happening. Many trials show that the way to reduce “crime” is to increase the odds of detection. If we think we can “get away with it” we are more likely to do wrong.
The thought of inward facing cameras makes me slightly uncomfortable, but I really dont feel as strongly as many here seem to. If we do get inward facing cameras, I dont yet know how I`ll react.

  • No answers required of course! Just musing on the edges of the issue.

In answer to your question of wages v insurance costs, my total* insurance is roughly 9% of my annual wage bill . I might not be a good example as the double manning skews the figures.

*Total including liability ,GIT, airside etc

Winseer:
“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:

Says that, posts on a trucking website where they harvest your data and share it with third party service providers - read the TrucknetUK privacy policy linked at the bottom of the page…

Ok franglais.
I understand.

albion:
In answer to your question of wages v insurance costs, my total* insurance is roughly 9% of my annual wage bill . I might not be a good example as the double manning skews the figures.

*Total including liability ,GIT, airside etc

Making some very broad generalisations and assumptions. Guessing 10% insurance discount for having cameras fitted ? (Swift offered 12.5% to car drivers in 2014, GIT etc tranche wouldnt be affected) If drivers were to say "no" to cameras they would become more expensive to employ wouldnt they? , due to higher insurance.
10% of 10% of wages equals a one percent potential pay difference to the individual driver?? Or if the company takes half, thats half a percent. Give drivers a choice? In cab cameras means a payrise, because of cheaper insurance? Wouldnt work too well in the real world maybe.
A 1% raise wouldnt hold much appeal to a camera objector, Id guess. A grand don`t go too far nowadays does it?

As I said some woolly figures there, but youll get the drift Im sure.

Franglais:

albion:
In answer to your question of wages v insurance costs, my total* insurance is roughly 9% of my annual wage bill . I might not be a good example as the double manning skews the figures.

*Total including liability ,GIT, airside etc

Making some very broad generalisations and assumptions. Guessing 10% insurance discount for having cameras fitted ? (Swift offered 12.5% to car drivers in 2014, GIT etc tranche wouldnt be affected) If drivers were to say "no" to cameras they would become more expensive to employ wouldnt they? , due to higher insurance.
10% of 10% of wages equals a one percent potential pay difference to the individual driver?? Or if the company takes half, thats half a percent. Give drivers a choice? In cab cameras means a payrise, because of cheaper insurance? Wouldnt work too well in the real world maybe.
A 1% raise wouldnt hold much appeal to a camera objector, Id guess. A grand don`t go too far nowadays does it?

As I said some woolly figures there, but youll get the drift Im sure.

Wouldn’t be near another grand put like that, 1% of 40k is 400, better than nothing but not a game changer IMO. The real change in Insurers cutting rates is if they see a change in claims history. If you are a company that has frequent accidents , then your premium is high. If you fit inward facing cameras are fitted and the accident rate drops, you’ll see a reduction. If the cameras have no effect on the accident rate, then your insurance stays the same.

albion:
The real change in Insurers cutting rates is if they see a change in claims history. If you are a company that has frequent accidents , then your premium is high. If you fit inward facing cameras are fitted and the accident rate drops, you’ll see a reduction. If the cameras have no effect on the accident rate, then your insurance stays the same.

OK, Im sure youre right there. I was thinking, mistakenly, more about an insurer going off general figures rather a company`s actual history.

albion:
Wouldn’t be near another grand put like that, 1%

Sorry, I was thinking* about 1% of my salary… :smiley:

*dreaming?

[Quote
Because we carry high value kit, we were very early adopters of trackers and one of the selling points was the reduction on the insurance. Nothing, nix, nada. I suspect reductions might happen if you have terrible claims history and you fit cameras and a year later having analysed Fred yawning and Joe reading War and Peace, taking action and seeing a reduction in accidents, then you would probably get a few grand off.Quote]
Referring to the fitting of trackers, I worked for a firm that had them fitted to all the units but not the trailers. The point is that if someone wants to steal a valuable load the odds are that they would drop the trailer where it was to be unloaded and the unit would be dumped elsewhere. Does this make sense?

waddy640:
[Quote
Because we carry high value kit, we were very early adopters of trackers and one of the selling points was the reduction on the insurance. Nothing, nix, nada. I suspect reductions might happen if you have terrible claims history and you fit cameras and a year later having analysed Fred yawning and Joe reading War and Peace, taking action and seeing a reduction in accidents, then you would probably get a few grand off.Quote]
Referring to the fitting of trackers, I worked for a firm that had them fitted to all the units but not the trailers. The point is that if someone wants to steal a valuable load the odds are that they would drop the trailer where it was to be unloaded and the unit would be dumped elsewhere. Does this make sense?

We don’t have trackers on the trailers. I would if we left loaded trailers anywhere, but ours are only left on a secure site if loaded.

Quite what the MO of thieves is these days, I’m not sure!

Franglais:

albion:
The real change in Insurers cutting rates is if they see a change in claims history. If you are a company that has frequent accidents , then your premium is high. If you fit inward facing cameras are fitted and the accident rate drops, you’ll see a reduction. If the cameras have no effect on the accident rate, then your insurance stays the same.

OK, Im sure youre right there. I was thinking, mistakenly, more about an insurer going off general figures rather a company`s actual history.

albion:
Wouldn’t be near another grand put like that, 1%

Sorry, I was thinking* about 1% of my salary… :smiley:

*dreaming?

You working part time again, then?

the maoster:

Conor:
Their trucks, permission not needed.

I guess you’ll be handing in your notice on Monday if they are?

A little tip; try not to be so obnoxious with your replies and you might get taken more seriously. You’re obviously an educated guy who is perfectly capable of getting your usually good points across so why do you feel the need to attempt to belittle everyone when you reply? This isn’t meant as a dig at you Conor 'cos as I reiterate your points are usually very valid but you seem to think that as it’s the internet you can talk to strangers in a way I guarantee you wouldn’t face to face with someone. Unless you’re actually Chuck Norris that is. :wink:

I actually agree with Conor,
I am past retirement age, no financial worries , and could walk away tomorrow…

Stanley Mitchell:

ezydriver:
It won’t be long before inward facing cameras become intelligent, and able to recognise misdemeanours, such as drivers taking eyes off the road for more than a given number of seconds, drinking a sneaky coffee, or god forbid, yawning. And what will happen when it has recognised such? It will automatically send the footage to DVSA (as a future condition of belonging to FORS), and the offender either fined, re-educated, or sacked.

The future is bleak.

DHL have had something in the cab that detects when you are tired, I had a “voice” tell me to pull over one morning going south on the M1…Scared the living daylights out of me…never did need that “rest”, talk about adrenalin :open_mouth:

I know it was trial between Volvo + DHL, and it was a few years ago, not too sure if it progressed any further …

The newest Actros has that system, or one very much like it.

Norfolkinclue1:
Random tin foil hat garbage, you should actually read up on personal data, its uses,your rights and recourse to justice before you post this kind of [zb].
I think everyone gets your agenda but you do undermine it somewhat with your dramatised bullet pointing.
The only one I will bother with because it’s not laden with paranoid politically driven rants is your alleged BT experience… the last 2 houses I bought for renovation and rental both got sent bills as soon as I became owner due to them previously being rental properties, one from Npower and one from British Gas demanding outstanding bill payment, I contacted them and refused but explaining why, was asked to send proof by way of financial documentation which I refused to do as it’s not their right to hold such info and was threatened with recovery procedures.
I just got my solicitor to send letters confirming sale and date and problem was solved with letters from both confirming such.
I can’t help but feel that any issues you have are self inflicted, as I said, do some reading up about your rights before launching into posting some of this stuff, yes you have a right to an opinion but i don’t don’t think you have the right to misinform in order to promote your agenda.
For anyone who’s digested Winseers rant and is now utterly paranoid about being a number and therefore ending up whittling spoons in a mud hut because normal society might want to know something about you if you want a mortgage etc, then speak to a solicitor or just have a scout around the internet and you will find all you need to know about data, your rights, others rights and how the regulations have been developed in recent years due to courts cases etc. Article 29 Working Party Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment on ‘Google Spain and inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González’ c-131/121 (WP 225 ) was I believe one such case that helped.
Of course if Winseer is telling the truth and actually following his own advice about not being a number or staying away from credit agencies etc then he wouldn’t have a house, a driving licence, a passport or the right to vote ( there’s irony ), he of course does have these so take from that what you will.
I take from it that the internet is a very good place for him to let off steam rather than the local high street armed with a sandwich board and a megaphone on a Saturday afternoon competing for airtime with “Special Brew Dave” and some fella sat on his coat with a recorder and a wolf on a rope.

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: