It sounds a lot of hassle to me.Its easier just to put up with them and keep your job
Yes, it is important drivers are asked to give consent for these devices, and if their existing contracts do not allow for it, then employers are on a sticky wicket trying to bring in DFCs. Personally if I were in that position it would have me looking for another driving job.
However… There is (certainly in the north east) a surplus of drivers in relation to driving jobs, so an exiting driver will soon be replaced by one of an endless stream of other potential drivers. Within a few weeks the exiting driver will be mostly forgotten by their former colleagues, so merely threatening to leave is a futile gesture.
A TM at a very well known outfit (hint, they have thirteen named companies as part of their group) told me recently that for every driver vacancy he advertises he gets between 100 and 400 applications 
Fitting the cameras without any consultation involving those they are pointed at is an act of extreme extreme arrogance in my opinion. No doubt if drivers stick together and no vehicles are moving, a swift reversal would be highly likely.
stu675:
tmcassett:
(Disclaimer snipped …)But surely a company has a right to install them if they so wish and you have a choice whether to accept them and carry on employment or go elsewhere. .
No, that’s not how employment law works. You have a contract and you have deemed terms of how your employment operates. If the employer wants to change anything substantial, it will fall into either fair or unfair. So if your employer imposes unfair changes and you leave, you could have a case of constructive dismissal which has the same penalties on the employer as unfair dismissal.
But depending on the company and either how big they are or how desperate they want to implement whatever changes, then they can and will do it, union or no union. I’m speaking from experience of this working for Tesco in the past. We fought changes to rotas/shift patterns/job roles that they wanted through our union but ultimately they got their way in the end. In the case being discussed here, as much as I am personally against driver facing camera’s and would fight again to stop them they are not what I would deem as being “unfair” for a particular company to install if they wanted to, as long as the correct procedures were followed, like consultation meetings, relevant notice of change to contract etc.
Sploom:
It sounds a lot of hassle to me.Its easier just to put up with them and keep your job
If your firm implemented a strict drugs search policy where you got the finger in a rubber glove up the arse every Mon morning there would be a queue.
The guys at the back saying ‘■■■■ this I ain’t going THAT far’',.then the undecided reluctant crew thinking on it,.then the moaners who would go along with it in the end,…And then YOU at the front volunteering to be first,…Christ you would even bring your own lube from home. 
just to ‘‘Avoid the hassle, put up with it and keep your job’’. 
I and a couple of others got nowhere trying to persuade the ‘borgs’ about the drver facing incident type cameras, (no probs with the outward facing part of it btw) but at least we had a bloody good go right up the the last second, before we saw resistance was futile,.and had to weigh up the situation whether or not it was worth looking for another job,.and taking into consideration the quality of jobs and firms in this area…which was the deciding factor in the end.
Ive had cameras shoved inside me anywhere they can fit them so it wouldnt be such a big deal!
But seriously if you were working out my place and you came up to me,I would say,yes,Im prepared to go along with whatever action the union were going to take.But to be honest I wouldnt vote for strike,I dont wont to rock the boat,Ive got too many things going on in my life that need the pounds,shillings and pence but I wouldnt go against the union by crossing the picket line.
But if you dont have a union,its a bit more difficult.They could sack you all ,if its only a small company.The driver shortage is over.We’re just ten a penny now.Sorry to put it in black and white
I’ve watched several videos on youtube from driver facing cameras where the driver crashed either from falling asleep or being distracted. The camera showed what happened, it didn’t stop what happened. All the camera did was help the safety manager figure out what happened.
Noremac:
No doubt if drivers stick together and no vehicles are moving, a swift reversal would be highly likely.
That’s just it, drivers do not stick together, in my years as a driver all I ever saw was drivers undermining each other. Mention unionization and all you get it grief, then later there is a need for unity but it doesn’t exist I think Robroy has said it before, drivers are often their own worst enemy.
Providing it’s like aircraft Blackboxes.
On a closed loop only saving the last 3mins before & 2mins after a trigger point.
I have no issue with it.
If they are saving/uploading your whole trip for further scrutiny, then I think it’s an invasion of privacy.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
Sploom:
It sounds a lot of hassle to me.Its easier just to put up with them and keep your job
And there it is, the reason we have to put up with crap like this. Come on mate grow a backbone.
WideWolf:
Providing it’s like aircraft Blackboxes.
On a closed loop only saving the last 3mins before & 2mins after a trigger point.
I have no issue with it.If they are saving/uploading your whole trip for further scrutiny, then I think it’s an invasion of privacy.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
Not all incidents/accidents whatever you want to call them will trigger a camera system. Have you ever seen any of the multiple videos of HGV’s T boning a car and just driving down the motorway, driver is oblivious so how would the camera know anything happened?
stu675:
WideWolf:
Providing it’s like aircraft Blackboxes.
On a closed loop only saving the last 3mins before & 2mins after a trigger point.
I have no issue with it.If they are saving/uploading your whole trip for further scrutiny, then I think it’s an invasion of privacy.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
Not all incidents/accidents whatever you want to call them will trigger a camera system. Have you ever seen any of the multiple videos of HGV’s T boning a car and just driving down the motorway, driver is oblivious so how would the camera know anything happened?
That’s upto the person designing the trigger system to accommodate all designated triggers.
And up to the people procuring the system to agree & specify all desired trigger events.
Most trucks have proximity sensors.
A trigger (Could be)
IF proximity is below (x) and speed above (y) THEN trigger proximity event.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
msgyorkie:
A few years ago a Director at our place mentioned the possibility of installing cameras into vehicles to “bring the insurance down”. It was then thrown back at him that if the cameras were installed then the Union would be notified and no vehicles would leave the yard untill the issue was resolved.
That was 4 years ago and we do NOT have cameras in the vehicles.
Just saying!
#unionpower
Excellent. Well done!!
#Aslef.
Reading this with interest because I start next Tuesday class1 with a company that has these installed and they don’t worry me.
Imagine car brake checks you and up his arse you go, car driver says you was to close and hit him in the rear.
How can you prove otherwise?
Cameras installed you can and they are there to protect the company and you.
Sattalk:
Reading this with interest because I start next Tuesday class1 with a company that has these installed and they don’t worry me.Imagine car brake checks you and up his arse you go, car driver says you was to close and hit him in the rear.
How can you prove otherwise?
Cameras installed you can and they are there to protect the company and you.
I REST MY CASE. AMEN.
Crack on drive.
Sattalk:
Reading this with interest because I start next Tuesday class1 with a company that has these installed and they don’t worry me.Imagine car brake checks you and up his arse you go, car driver says you was to close and hit him in the rear.
How can you prove otherwise?
Cameras installed you can and they are there to protect the company and you.
I see what you are saying, nobody is sitting watching hours and hours of you driving a lorry. However, there is still a hi-definition video of you in what otherwise you would consider a private moment.
It is a serious change to the working environment in which a driver works (in my opinion anyway) and it should be consulted over and proper notice given so drivers can make a properly informed decision on whether they wish to stay or leave.
For cameras to be installed and drivers not to know if it is constantly recording, who will be looking at the footage etc, doesn’t seem right to me.
Sattalk:
Reading this with interest because I start next Tuesday class1 with a company that has these installed and they don’t worry me.Imagine car brake checks you and up his arse you go, car driver says you was to close and hit him in the rear.
How can you prove otherwise?
Cameras installed you can and they are there to protect the company and you.
Hey drive.
You’d be pleased to know we are installing a camera in the middle of your head so we can see everything you do 24/7.
This will be great because if you get accused of drug use or being over the limit we can prove your not.
Seriously though the reason the camera’s are bad is obvious.
HGV work with many companies is seasonal work sometimes they do not need as many drivers or sometimes they want to get rid of a few ones that ■■■■ off management.
Easy to do with a camera installed. They will easily find some stupid thing like taking your hands off the wheel for a sec, or drinking / eating while driving or smoking a cig and say this is gross misconduct and fire your ■■■.
Obviously no company will admit this is why they are there… but it is a reason for sure.
Sattalk:
Imagine car brake checks you and up his arse you go, car driver says you was to close and hit him in the rear.How can you prove otherwise?
.
The driver facing camera proves your innocence how exactly?
[quoteso you will eat and drink illegally but not use your phone illegally, same offence same punishment and " your not allowed to stop for a break " ,which set of rules has that come from , to be honest im gobsmacked by the fact that you allow your boss to dictate when to rest if tired, eat and drink and when to go to the loo because your not allowed to by your firm [/quote]
Swordsy:
Weve had them for months now. As far as Im aware they ‘trigger’ if there is an incident, such as harsh braking, erratic steering, collision. Visiontrack, who supplied ours apparently review the footage (30 seconds prior and after the event) and if they deem its something the driver shouldn’t be doing, they send the footage to our company for a senior manager to review. If the incident shows nothing, it is ignored. It is recording constantly, so if someone sends in a complaint, or police ask, any footage at any time can be viewed.All a load of bolox really, I just ignore it now. I never ever ever touch my phone when driving as its not worth the risk. I still eat and drink, water, apples, nuts etc. Dont give a stuff, if im hungry or thirsty i will eat and drink as we are not allowed to stop for breaks.
Like a previous poster said, Im not happy with them, BUT the other advantages of the job (easy, good money, good hours) far outweigh the cameras.