Driver Cam News

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
#1
As of tomorrow, March 22, 2017, the inside-facing cameras will be shut off company wide. You will be allowed to cover the lens with tape or whatever you want to as long as you do not damage the equipment. Outward-facing lens will still remain active.

Swift has found the inward-facing cameras to be more of a liability than a benefit, for a number of reasons, driver retention being one of the biggest.
 

Duck

Quack
Supporter
#3
As of tomorrow, March 22, 2017, the inside-facing cameras will be shut off company wide. You will be allowed to cover the lens with tape or whatever you want to as long as you do not damage the equipment. Outward-facing lens will still remain active.

Swift has found the inward-facing cameras to be more of a liability than a benefit, for a number of reasons, driver retention being one of the biggest.
thumbsup.gif
 
#11
i had always thought the driver facing cameras were a huge liability, above all else.

i think if a truck is equipped with a dash cam it also needs cameras facing toward the back on either side to tell more of story. the dash cam only tells a portion of the event.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
#12
i think if a truck is equipped with a dash cam it also needs cameras facing toward the back on either side to tell more of story. the dash cam only tells a portion of the event.
That's true, but those forward-facing only cams are still able to tell a lot of the story with no bias. In my case, if my last truck had been equipped with one, the whole story would have played out right there on the screen. It does save a lot of liability.

When I was with Prime, there was a lane stray indicator camera mounted to the windshield. It did absolutely nothing except detect lane departure and mine had been disconnected by Freightliner because the way it was hooked up messed with the truck's ECM. Anyway, a guy in a car accused me of rear-ending him and called the cops. He did have rear-end damage, but it looked to me like he'd backed into something. He wanted his car repaired, so just blame a trucker because deep pockets. I hadn't gone anywhere near him. There was nothing wrong with my front bumper.

So cop is taking the report from this guy and then comes over to talk to me. I told the cop I hadn't been anywhere near the guy's car. Cop asks whether I could prove that. I said that aside from my pristine bumper, no, but Brother is about to tell the truth.

Cop looked at me kind'a funny and called the guy over. I pointed to the blind Iteris camera and asked the guy whether he needed to review the video. Funny how quick the story changed.

Anyway, at the end of the encounter, cop came over to turn me loose and asked if the camera recorded anything. Then, I explained to him what that camera was and what it did. He shook his head a little and walked away with a chuckle.

So sometimes, just the presence of a camera, whether it works or not, is enough to save a lot of hassle.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
#13
The bosses aren't particularly happy, but the question I asked was, "What was the actual benefit to having these cameras? Did our accident rate go down? Did critical events go down? Did crash liability go down?"

Only answer was, "Well, we can't see what the driver is doing anymore."

Okay, I get it, but did the cameras actually provide any benefit besides more drivers using their seatbelts, really?

No.
But we can't see....

Exactly.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
#15
They were just a way to take the blame from themselves and put it on the driver.
Crashes are not the fault of the guy in the office. He's not the one out there making decisions on whether to turn the key or not. However, 85% of crashes involving big trucks and other vehicles are not the fault of the truck driver, either. They are the fault of the driver in the other vehicle.

It's not a matter of assigning guilt. It's a matter of babysitting adults. It's a way of having a desk jockey sitting next to the driver while he does his job. It's a matter of control. Nothing more.
 

dchawk81

Well-Known Member
#16
No it's a way of nitpicking a driver to lay the blame 100% on him. Companies do have some responsibility such as poor maintenance.

This is lawyers not dispatchers deciding to put cameras there.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
#17
This is lawyers not dispatchers deciding to put cameras there.
Okay, then who decided to turn the cameras off that point at the driver? This thread is about giving drivers back their dignity and privacy, not installing them in the first place.

I'm one of the biggest driver cam protesters at Swift. Every time they have asked me whether I would recommend Swift for new drivers, I have said no. Primary reason being the lack of respect they show their drivers with these cameras. Well, they eliminated my biggest gripe.

Therefore, I have no problem saying Swift is a good place to get a solid start in this business.
 

dchawk81

Well-Known Member
#18
Okay, then who decided to turn the cameras off that point at the driver? This thread is about giving drivers back their dignity and privacy, not installing them in the first place.

I'm one of the biggest driver cam protesters at Swift. Every time they have asked me whether I would recommend Swift for new drivers, I have said no. Primary reason being the lack of respect they show their drivers with these cameras. Well, they eliminated my biggest gripe.

Therefore, I have no problem saying Swift is a good place to get a solid start in this business.
I dunno but it certainly wasn't the dispatchers. They don't make high level decisions.

But I agree with everything else. Glad they're shutting them off.

Everyone (as far as I know) at the intermodal lot has said they'll quit if pumpkin ever gets such an idea in their head. So basically they'd lose a whole department in an instant. We aren't Union but we agree on that much.
 

Duck

Quack
Supporter
#19
Just because they gave the drivers permission to block the inside lens isn't enough. There's still a microphone on those things, capturing audio.

Everyone (as far as I know) at the intermodal lot has said they'll quit if pumpkin ever gets such an idea in their head. So basically they'd lose a whole department in an instant. We aren't Union but we agree on that much.
Everyone says that but in real life, when it happens, most of them won't, but will be full of excuses for why they're not keeping their word.