OK….as I interpret the article, the law would allow vehicle owners to place cameras on the dashboard videotaping what is ahead of them i.e. an accident – not the driver himself. Companies not only have a right – they have an obligation to monitor the driving of professional hired drivers, as well as have the benefit of physical evidence to DEFEND THEMSELVES, should the need arise. After all, commercial vehicles are a target due to their higher liability limits. Police have dashboard cameras for the very same reason.
These posts don’t look like they’re being made by ANYONE in the insurance industry?
Now this is BIG BROTHER at its finest. Lets all spy on everyone around us so we can do what our law enforcement is getting paid for with our tax dollars. Whats next, video cameras in our lapel to easdrop on every conversation that we have?
Government doe’s not want us to have radar detectors but wants us to have video cameras. Go figure.
Well, whenever something like this comes around I am always reminded of the saying “When they watch everyone, they watch no one.”
I am still “on the fence” with it though. I am siding more with having the cameras in the cars just for the reasons they stated. Besides “them watching you” what are the problems that you see with having the cameras in the vehicles?
Business owners have every right to watch their employees while they are on the job. It’s not like they are installing these cameras in their personal cars.
Reminds me of another Raider Fan who was the spouse of an employee who quit his job because “they wanted me to work the whole time I was on the job”. See, he got in trouble for repeatedly chatting and texting on his cell phone when he was supposed to be loading trucks. Heartless bastards.
How can anyone be against lowering costs, you ask. Direct that question to the unions. I’m sure you’ll find that lowering cost is not on their agenda, unless they’re the only ones to benefit.
Yes- You did misread. These cameras are common in the delivery & taxi business. Business owners install them; not gov’t mandated. The cameras roll constantly, record to a hard drive, & retain the 10 seconds or so before an impact/sudden braking/acceleration/turn. They film forward & backward from the dash/review mirror so you can see if the driver put on the seat belt, what the driver was doing just prior, what was in front of & behind the auto. Some folks have been fired when the record function was activated because the driver slammed the door to get out in traffic & rage at another driver & it was all recorded. Lots of eating/texting accidents. Lots of “not at fault” accident proof protecting the driver… especially from passengers who claim all sorts of injuries when the video shows no impact to them at all. And robberies. The big brother is the company owner who puts the cameras in for loss control, and maybe the courts when they subpoena the tapes.
You have vehicle owners that employ people to be professional drivers who get fired for acting like jackoffs, not in line with the image the owner desires, and vehicle owners better able to defend themselves from all sorts of claims? What’s really amazing is that this was previously illegal in California. Did someone finally get some sense out there?
So how is the vehicle owner a “big brother”? I have a “big brother” and he’s known as my boss. If I don’t like it, guess I should move on, eh?
I have to agree with you Cap. As long as it stays in work vehicles, and we are not forced to put cameras in our personal vehicles or homes, there are many more benefits then downfalls. Just the help in lowing cost of claims will help everyone in the long run. If the insurance premiums decrease instead of increase because the insurance company is paying out less on claims because they have more evidence that the truck driver was not at fault, or that the other party is falsifing medical expsense, then that company, in theory, will lower their prices to sell more of their product. How can anyone be against lowering costs?
OK….as I interpret the article, the law would allow vehicle owners to place cameras on the dashboard videotaping what is ahead of them i.e. an accident – not the driver himself. Companies not only have a right – they have an obligation to monitor the driving of professional hired drivers, as well as have the benefit of physical evidence to DEFEND THEMSELVES, should the need arise. After all, commercial vehicles are a target due to their higher liability limits. Police have dashboard cameras for the very same reason.
These posts don’t look like they’re being made by ANYONE in the insurance industry?
Now this is BIG BROTHER at its finest. Lets all spy on everyone around us so we can do what our law enforcement is getting paid for with our tax dollars. Whats next, video cameras in our lapel to easdrop on every conversation that we have?
Government doe’s not want us to have radar detectors but wants us to have video cameras. Go figure.
Shhh…they’ll hear you…
Well, whenever something like this comes around I am always reminded of the saying “When they watch everyone, they watch no one.”
I am still “on the fence” with it though. I am siding more with having the cameras in the cars just for the reasons they stated. Besides “them watching you” what are the problems that you see with having the cameras in the vehicles?
I’m with Nerd. I see too many truckers driving semis and talking on cell phones. That would stop if they were on camera.
Business owners have every right to watch their employees while they are on the job. It’s not like they are installing these cameras in their personal cars.
Reminds me of another Raider Fan who was the spouse of an employee who quit his job because “they wanted me to work the whole time I was on the job”. See, he got in trouble for repeatedly chatting and texting on his cell phone when he was supposed to be loading trucks. Heartless bastards.
How can anyone be against lowering costs, you ask. Direct that question to the unions. I’m sure you’ll find that lowering cost is not on their agenda, unless they’re the only ones to benefit.
Yes- You did misread. These cameras are common in the delivery & taxi business. Business owners install them; not gov’t mandated. The cameras roll constantly, record to a hard drive, & retain the 10 seconds or so before an impact/sudden braking/acceleration/turn. They film forward & backward from the dash/review mirror so you can see if the driver put on the seat belt, what the driver was doing just prior, what was in front of & behind the auto. Some folks have been fired when the record function was activated because the driver slammed the door to get out in traffic & rage at another driver & it was all recorded. Lots of eating/texting accidents. Lots of “not at fault” accident proof protecting the driver… especially from passengers who claim all sorts of injuries when the video shows no impact to them at all. And robberies. The big brother is the company owner who puts the cameras in for loss control, and maybe the courts when they subpoena the tapes.
You have vehicle owners that employ people to be professional drivers who get fired for acting like jackoffs, not in line with the image the owner desires, and vehicle owners better able to defend themselves from all sorts of claims? What’s really amazing is that this was previously illegal in California. Did someone finally get some sense out there?
So how is the vehicle owner a “big brother”? I have a “big brother” and he’s known as my boss. If I don’t like it, guess I should move on, eh?
I have to agree with you Cap. As long as it stays in work vehicles, and we are not forced to put cameras in our personal vehicles or homes, there are many more benefits then downfalls. Just the help in lowing cost of claims will help everyone in the long run. If the insurance premiums decrease instead of increase because the insurance company is paying out less on claims because they have more evidence that the truck driver was not at fault, or that the other party is falsifing medical expsense, then that company, in theory, will lower their prices to sell more of their product. How can anyone be against lowering costs?