Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum: Replying To Metrolink Train Strikes Car - First Use of Video Cams - Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

A few years ago there was a case of train hitting school bus. Fortunately near empty so the death numbes were low. The bus was equipped with a camera to observe student behavior. In this case, by use of the camera it could be proven that the school bus driver did not stop in advance of the crossing as required by law. (The roadside trees and bushes in the camera view never stopped moving.) It was a low traffic road, so it had crossbucks only. But, the line had long sight distances both ways.

Bus driver's statement after the accident: I don't know where the train came from. It must have fallen out of the sky.

Line was a CSX line with several trains a day and a 50 or 60 mph speed limit. She played Russian Roulette one too many times.

tp49, on Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Walmart sued over surveillance camera in restroom.

PetalumaLoco, on Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Actually it has been proposed as a response to 9/11 and is still being worked.

battalion51, on Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 05:18 AM, said:

However, the only places you have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the workplace are in a locker room while changing or while in the bathroom. Any cameras in those locations will have the employer subject to fines and/or lawsuits. Otherwise the employer is free to monitor the workplace as they deem fit.

As are the consequences of failure - if someone robs your hotel, your company is out some money. If an engineer screws up, dozens of people die. That changes the standards somewhat.

battalion51, on Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

I'm gonna disagree with you on that point. While I'll grant you that the example I'm about to give doesn't have someone being responsible for other's lives, that doesn't change the fact that these guys are both supposed to be professional and they are well paid, and no one is showing up to rob them either.

More than 20 years ago I worked in a machine shop; we rented space within a larger building occupied by a metal fabricator. All of the employees for the fabricator were union men, and most made at least $15 an hour, with some like the arc welders making over $25 an hour and that was 20 years ago. While they didn't have a camera in their face like say the engineer, there were cameras that displayed all areas of the plant and the employees were quite visible. And the reason is that these professionals couldn't be trusted to actually do the work assigned to them in a timely manor and a few would even steal metal scraps to sell.

And this was before cell phones and the myriad of devices that we have today to help increase distractions.

I for one don't believe for a second that what one gets paid necessarily changes one's mindset about how to conduct one's job. It probably should, but it doesn't. And in this day and age, many will take jobs that they aren't perhaps qualified simply because the pay is good; assuming that they can get past the interviews and such.

No, I don't. I work in the hotel industry, thus how:

Quote

I wholeheartedly agree that if you are in a place where there is high risk for you to be robbed, are in a high profile location, or if you have associates that are likely to steal from you, then yes, by all means have cameras. However, there is a fine line between associates who make $8/hour flipping burgers and Engineers who are making over $30/hour. The mind sets and level of professionalism are completely different, and your expectations as an employer are completely different.

battalion51, on Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

so you think its a invasion of privacy. so how is having a camera trained on a locomotive engineer any different then having it trained on the casher at burger king or meijers or kmart etc. the cab of the locomotive is a workplace. if a train crashed due to the engineer texting or falling asleep the camera would show that. thats my opnion. im guessing you work for the engineers union sense you and them both have the same view.

Complete L.A. Times story:

Truck hits car, then collides with train in Pacoima; 2 critically injured

Didn't bother posting at the time (12-24) due to freakish nature of collision and the fact that no safety system can ever prevent such mishaps. Cameras are for legal butt-covering, assigning blame, and scaring people into compliance with the knowledge they're being watched.

I don't think you have a "right to privacy" in the workplace, especially where public safety is involved. I can see the idea of safety in your own home; I think that's enshrined in the Constitution. But the car of a train, or the cockpit of a plane, or even behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler, is not a "private" place, IMHO.

But then again, I'm not an ACLU or even constitutional lawyer, so what do I know?