Cab Cams an "invastion of privacy"???

[VentureForth]

Apparently, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers don't want cameras in locomotive cabs. "Invades privacy." Article in the LA Times here.

Are there cab cams in Amtrak locos other than for accident recording?

This is the sort of stuff that give unions a really bad name, and quite rightly a sour taste in the public's opinion. Why should they object to cameras in the cab? Only if they're not doing their job. In fact, instead of just recording to a hard drive or tape on board, they should quite frankly be live to a central office in my humble opinion!

 

[profwebs]

For as anti union as I am, I partly agree with the BLE here. My union decided to put GPS in our trucks, and lost the battle. GPS is one thing, camera's is another. If they are recording to a hard drive to be used by accident investigators, that is one thing, I guess I could live with that. Having a live feed sent to a central office where any manager can look at it is quite another. Big brother is already watching us enough.

It just has to do with invasion of privacy....

 

[VentureForth]

Perhaps this is naive, but am I wrong to believe that there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy when you are working at the will of your employeer? If they decided to put a camera in my cubicle, they have that right - just as I have the right to do my job as it was described to me and if not, I have the right to leave.

When it comes to the safety of passengers, why should privacy take precidence? Unless you're doing something private (ie: going the bathroom), you're employeer has the right to know what you're doing on their dime.

 

[saxman]

Same thing with airliners. Some companies wanted to put cameras in the cockpit. My union said not only said no, but they said H...L No! Many companies would try and use it to dicipline pilots rather than for safety purposes. They had enough of a hard time making it illegal for companies to use the black box against pilots for diciplinary action instead of safety improvement. Luckily there is a law that allows only the black box to be used for investigation purposes in an accident or incident.

So this is the exact same thing. They're worried the camera will be used against the engineer, even if the engineer didn't willfully do anything wrong. So I think the union has a legit concern here.

 

[wayman]

Perhaps this is naive, but am I wrong to believe that there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy when you are working at the will of your employeer? If they decided to put a camera in my cubicle, they have that right - just as I have the right to do my job as it was described to me and if not, I have the right to leave.
When it comes to the safety of passengers, why should privacy take precidence? Unless you're doing something private (ie: going the bathroom), you're employeer has the right to know what you're doing on their dime.

One argument I can see against the cameras:

If an employee has an exemplary performance record and safety record, but has a personality conflict for some reason with his supervisor, there is no real measure for that supervisor to discipline the employee (nor should there be). But if there is a camera recording the employee's every movement while on the job, the supervisor -- having a grudge for non-work-related reasons -- could look through the tape for any possible issue, no matter how insignificant to performance or safety. For instance, NORAC prohibits reading anything other than NORAC while on the job. What if, while safely stopped at a red signal waiting for a freight to pass, an engineer pulled out a shopping list? Technically that is (as I understand it) a rules infraction. Is it actually dereliction of duty or compromising safety? No, not really. Or what if, while stopped in the same safe situation, the conductor overhears passengers discussing the sports score of a big game and radios the engineer to mention "how 'bout them Yankees? I just heard they're up in the sixth inning!"? That too is probably technically against some rule or another.

The supervisor could probably collect a few such instances and write up a disciplinary complaint against this employee which might have serious repercussions, even though these are minor things that have no actual relevance to performance or safety. And the supervisor would never do the same thing for another employee with whom he had no personality conflict. The video record enables a supervisor to hold employees to very different standards based on personal and subjective -- not objective -- measures.

I don't know if that is the union's argument (or one of several arguments), but it's something I would argue were I in the union's position.

 

[VentureForth]

It would seem to me that a witch hunt would be obviously discernable from a legitimate safety concern. Why would anyone even look at the tapes unless someone were doing something wrong, with the exception of random screenings? I think that an objective panel that doesn't come from the public school system's zero tolerance union could make a reasonable discernment between a shopping list at a red light vs War and Peace with the highball.

I understand your other arguments, but to them, I say what's the problem with that? There are rules on the books that allow rest periods while at a siding for x amount of time during which cell phone calls, texting, reading, and even sleeping is allowed. In all of these scenarios, there is always a 2nd human in the cab.

Where there is no other human in the cab, what's wrong with the eye in the sky? So long as it is not government controlled (I didn't say used by the NTSB for investigation), even a quasi government entity like Amtrak should think of these to be in the best interest of the safety of their passengers and the protection of their expensive equipment paid for by you and me.

 

[Amtrak839]

I have 2 friends who I know have not only gotten cab rides, but have had their hands on the throttle of a P42. And I don't mean for just a minute, I mean for a good hour or so. One of these cab rides was about a year ago, not long after the Chatsworth wreck, surprisingly. So as of a year ago, Amtrak didn't have cameras in the locomotive cabs watching the engineers. I'm with the BLE 100% on this one.

 

[wayman]

It would seem to me that a witch hunt would be obviously discernable from a legitimate safety concern. Why would anyone even look at the tapes unless someone were doing something wrong, with the exception of random screenings? I think that an objective panel that doesn't come from the public school system's zero tolerance union could make a reasonable discernment between a shopping list at a red light vs War and Peace with the highball.

There isn't always going to be an "objective panel" overseeing these things. All it takes is one supervisor with a grudge putting one thing on an employee's record. And it's not unreasonable to expect that such a thing could happen, and that it's something the cameras make possible.

I understand your other arguments, but to them, I say what's the problem with that? There are rules on the books that allow rest periods while at a siding for x amount of time during which cell phone calls, texting, reading, and even sleeping is allowed. In all of these scenarios, there is always a 2nd human in the cab.

As I understand it, it is very rare for there to be two people in the cab on Amtrak. So long as a shift is scheduled to be under some limit -- six hours? -- I think a second person is not required. Since this is generally cheaper for Amtrak, they tend to schedule crew changes such that they can run this way. At least, that's what several Amtrak engineers have told me.

Also, I'm not sure where the rule on the books allows cell phone calls, texting, reading or sleeping while on a siding. The rule I'm aware of is NORAC General Rule E, which states

E. Prohibited Behavior The following behaviors are prohibited:

1. While on duty or on company property: Gambling, fighting or participating in any illegal, immoral or unauthorized

activity.

2. When required to perform service: Sleeping or assuming the attitude of sleep. Having or using electronic devices not

related to their duties, unless authorized by the railroad. Card playing or reading other than Company instructions.

3. Solicitation of gratuities from patrons.

Can you cite the exception to this? I couldn't find it, skimming NORAC (8th Ed) just now.

 

[transit54]

For as anti union as I am, I partly agree with the BLE here. My union decided to put GPS in our trucks, and lost the battle. GPS is one thing, camera's is another. If they are recording to a hard drive to be used by accident investigators, that is one thing, I guess I could live with that. Having a live feed sent to a central office where any manager can look at it is quite another. Big brother is already watching us enough.
It just has to do with invasion of privacy....

Well, it's not a live feed. I'd assume these are hard drive based recorders, in which case the hard drive needs to be removed from the recording unit for the video to be played. There are a few companies on the market that produce recording units where videos can be pulled or watched live via WiFi, but that would require a supervisor's vehicle to be within a few hundred feet of the train. Transmitting video live over a cellular connection would be prohibitively expensive and to the best of my knowledge, there's not even a product on the market that does this.

If there are concerns about videos being used inappropriately, then restrict access to the recording units. Only give keys to higher level management to ensure that videos are only used in serious incidents. Or create a policy that requires documentation in advance of why the videos were pulled. Or restrict the offenses for which an engineer can be disciplined on to only a few specific areas of egregious safety violations. There's ways to protect employees against abuse and ensure that management can enforce safety standards.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I'm confused-- are they protesting the cab cams that watch the tracks, or an addition camera that watches them as they drive-- to make sure that they aren't texting or something?

 

[VentureForth]

There isn't always going to be an "objective panel" overseeing these things. All it takes is one supervisor with a grudge putting one thing on an employee's record. And it's not unreasonable to expect that such a thing could happen, and that it's something the cameras make possible.

Understood. However, THIS is the time and place for the Union to take action against renegade management.

As I understand it, it is very rare for there to be two people in the cab on Amtrak. So long as a shift is scheduled to be under some limit -- six hours? -- I think a second person is not required. Since this is generally cheaper for Amtrak, they tend to schedule crew changes such that they can run this way. At least, that's what several Amtrak engineers have told me.
Also, I'm not sure where the rule on the books allows cell phone calls, texting, reading or sleeping while on a siding. The rule I'm aware of is NORAC General Rule E, which states

E. Prohibited Behavior The following behaviors are prohibited:

1. While on duty or on company property: Gambling, fighting or participating in any illegal, immoral or unauthorized

activity.

2. When required to perform service: Sleeping or assuming the attitude of sleep. Having or using electronic devices not

related to their duties, unless authorized by the railroad. Card playing or reading other than Company instructions.

3. Solicitation of gratuities from patrons.

Can you cite the exception to this? I couldn't find it, skimming NORAC (8th Ed) just now.

It actually is referred to in a policy issued byBNSF back a decade ago. I guess napping isn't an FRA rule per se, but the Railroads have some wiggle room. And that's fine. I saw the policy somewhere but can't find it at the moment.

I have 2 friends who I know have not only gotten cab rides, but have had their hands on the throttle of a P42. And I don't mean for just a minute, I mean for a good hour or so. One of these cab rides was about a year ago, not long after the Chatsworth wreck, surprisingly. So as of a year ago, Amtrak didn't have cameras in the locomotive cabs watching the engineers. I'm with the BLE 100% on this one.

Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES This is exactly WHY the cameras are needed! What the heck are engineers thinking letting someone pull the throttle on a locomotive carrying human beings??? I might could understand a short line going 20 MPH, but Amtrak???

I'm confused-- are they protesting the cab cams that watch the tracks, or an addition camera that watches them as they drive-- to make sure that they aren't texting or something?

The additional camera looking inside the cab.

For crying out loud, people, everytime you call any sort of company by phone these days, they want to record the call "For your protection." What's the freakin' problem with a camera if you're not doing wrong?

 

[Ryan]

Perhaps this is naive, but am I wrong to believe that there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy when you are working at the will of your employeer? If they decided to put a camera in my cubicle, they have that right - just as I have the right to do my job as it was described to me and if not, I have the right to leave.
When it comes to the safety of passengers, why should privacy take precidence? Unless you're doing something private (ie: going the bathroom), you're employeer has the right to know what you're doing on their dime.

One argument I can see against the cameras:

If an employee has an exemplary performance record and safety record, but has a personality conflict for some reason with his supervisor, there is no real measure for that supervisor to discipline the employee (nor should there be). But if there is a camera recording the employee's every movement while on the job, the supervisor -- having a grudge for non-work-related reasons -- could look through the tape for any possible issue, no matter how insignificant to performance or safety. For instance, NORAC prohibits reading anything other than NORAC while on the job. What if, while safely stopped at a red signal waiting for a freight to pass, an engineer pulled out a shopping list? Technically that is (as I understand it) a rules infraction. Is it actually dereliction of duty or compromising safety? No, not really. Or what if, while stopped in the same safe situation, the conductor overhears passengers discussing the sports score of a big game and radios the engineer to mention "how 'bout them Yankees? I just heard they're up in the sixth inning!"? That too is probably technically against some rule or another.

The supervisor could probably collect a few such instances and write up a disciplinary complaint against this employee which might have serious repercussions, even though these are minor things that have no actual relevance to performance or safety. And the supervisor would never do the same thing for another employee with whom he had no personality conflict. The video record enables a supervisor to hold employees to very different standards based on personal and subjective -- not objective -- measures.

I don't know if that is the union's argument (or one of several arguments), but it's something I would argue were I in the union's position.

I think the counter to this (usually used when discussing red light or speed cameras) is that non-enforcement of bad rules isn't the best solution. Write better rules that allow for some "wiggle room", and enforce them as strictly as possible, rather than depend on uneven enforcement based on personal judgment.
Personally, I find the union's position ridiculous.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES This is exactly WHY the cameras are needed! What the heck are engineers thinking letting someone pull the throttle on a locomotive carrying human beings??? I might could understand a short line going 20 MPH, but Amtrak???

I understand what your saying, but under supervision its not to bad IMHO. I am a voulnteer with the New Jersey Museum of Transportation. Where I am training to be an engineer. The first time I drove a train there were people on board. We operate under NORAC although we don't have the highest passanger comfort standards, driving a train isn't as hard as you'd think, its more about watching absoultly everything going on in front and to the sides of you.

As far as cameras go sadly they are invading everything. I guess it becomes part of the job there are a lot of jobs where your on camera everyday while at work I guess it becomes just part of the job. Hopefully it doesn't happen but you never no.

 

[Ispolkom]

Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES This is exactly WHY the cameras are needed! What the heck are engineers thinking letting someone pull the throttle on a locomotive carrying human beings??? I might could understand a short line going 20 MPH, but Amtrak???

I understand what your saying, but under supervision its not to bad IMHO. I am a voulnteer with the New Jersey Museum of Transportation. Where I am training to be an engineer. The first time I drove a train there were people on board. We operate under NORAC although we don't have the highest passanger comfort standards, driving a train isn't as hard as you'd think, its more about watching absoultly everything going on in front and to the sides of you.

As far as cameras go sadly they are invading everything. I guess it becomes part of the job there are a lot of jobs where your on camera everyday while at work I guess it becomes just part of the job. Hopefully it doesn't happen but you never no.

I think that there is a qualitative difference between a trainee operating a locomotive under direct supervision and an engineer letting John Q. Foamer at the controls. I imagine NORAC agrees -- certainly the Long Island Railroad does.

With regard to the cameras, what proportion of railroad accidents are due to engineers violating operating rules as opposed to other reasons? This Metrolink disaster is perhaps an especially egregious example, but I'd imagine that most fatalities are caused by people and vehicles violating the railroad right of way. Is operator error a major cause of freight derailments?

I'm wondering if the camera scheme is a case of authorities trying to CYA, rather than spend money in a way that would really increase safety.

 

[wayman]

I'm wondering if the camera scheme is a case of authorities trying to CYA, rather than spend money in a way that would really increase safety.

If the tapes are only going to be viewed as part of an investigation after an incident -- a derailment or collision, most likely -- then the damage has already been done. The cameras would certainly provide useful data for such an investigation. But the only way I see that the cameras could help to "prevent an accident" is that an engineer might feel its presence (and post-incident evidence) is a deterrent towards unsafe behavior (because if there were an investigation, it would prove the engineer was texting, smoking weed, whatever). I don't know how strong or successful a deterrent it would be, though -- the sad truth is that, in the most serious accidents, the engineer isn't going to care whether there's camera evidence against him because he'll already be dead.

 

[Ispolkom]

That's what I was trying to get at. Cab cameras are great at showing why an accident happened (if the cause was human error), but I'd think the emphasis should be on preventing accidents. Perhaps cameras do discourage misbehavior, but how much? Surely Metrolink isn't going to review every video recording of every engineer's run.

I imagine that improving grade crossings and more strictly punishing employees who violate safety rules (wasn't Sanchez "counseled" about cellphone usage before the accident?) will prevent more accidents than installing cab cameras will. But hey, I could be wrong. Are cab cameras in use anywhere? Do they improve safety?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The main problem you have here is what you call the slippery slope. Every year in every way, more electronic devices monitor us and watch us, checking our behavior. They are put there for "safety", which really means enforcing rules.

Let me give you an example of where it is not a good thing. Normally I stop at every red light. In fact, I'm pretty conservative about it. But here are a few scenarios:

1) As I'm approaching, it turns yellow. As is normal, I look in my reaview mirror as I begin to downshift in preparation for stopping. Behind me, though, is an ancient pickup truck, about 4 inches off my bumper. Deciding that I don't want to risk being rear-ended, I enter the intersection just as the light turns red. The pickup truck has slammed on its brakes and stops, its nose perhaps 3-4 feet into the intersection, 6-7 feet past the cross walk. This happend once. I got a ticket, and lost it in court. Had I stopped, I'd probably be dead.

2) Its a rainy day. The light turns yellow. As has happened a few times, when I step on my brakes, my ABS light comes on. ABS computer failure- or I screwed up and pumped the brakes accidentally and shut the thing off (an odd MB feature that I find both useful and frustrating). Either way, if I brake hard I'm going to enter the intersection anyway, probably sideways. Run through the intersection after taking my foot off the brake.

3) Its a cold winter day. No precipitation recently, no reason to suspect ice. Driving along at the speed limit or slightly above. Light turns yellow at that point where its flip a coin as to whether to stop. As I'm approaching I see that at some point something spilled on the road right near the intersection. It is now a sheet of ice. If I brake through it, I'm going to slide into the intersection. Take my foot off the brake and go through.

In each situation, unusual, but not obvious, circumstances prevailed that made a normally unsafe action (running a red light) not only wise, but the safe choice. Cameras can't see that. There are people in this country who have run red lights, with damned good reasons to do so, with tickets and points on their license for doing so.

So already we are using these watchdogs to the detrement of people who were doing the careful, safe option. A cop watching the red light would have seen the truck up my six. He would have pulled over the truck, and left me alone. A cop would probably have pulled me over for the second one, but I could show him the lit ABS light and explain why I did it. He'd probably let me off. I could probably explain the third one, too- and the cop could walk back and look to see the ice on the road.

But the camera can't see any of this. Standing in the location, a cop can gauge the reasonableness of the story. In court, it sounds like BS with no supporting evidence. By the time I know I'm ticketed, the truck has moved on, I've shut off my car (ABS computer resets) and that sheet of ice has long evaporated.

Where does it end? At what point do we decide that we are beginning to infringe on people's privacy. At what point do we decide that safety has reached a point where furthering it is less then then the detriment to our quality of life and freedom?

An engineer is supposed to do his job. Shouldn't read war and peace. But what about that engineer running a Sunset Limited that is spending 4 or 5 hours sitting. Is it not reasonable for him to have the oppurtunity to read, or even call his wife to tell her that he will be VERY late for dinner? Abnormal circumstance. But they exist.

I'm not that concerned about this camera. Probably won't be too concerned about the next. But how long is it from now that I have to be watched taking a dump in a public restroom so as to make sure I do the safe thing, wiping down the seat with disinfectant wipes? (I do clean up after myself in restrooms, incase you were wondering)

Tell me, VentureForth- where DOES it end?

 

[The Boss]

It really is pretty simple. "Welcome to Amtrak. You are an engineer. Amtrak has a camera in the cab."

[in the galley may prove useful in a case of food poisoning, as well.]

"Don't like it? Go sell shoes or something. Thanks for your interest in Amtrak!"

 

[volkris]

When people start complaining that cameras will allow every minor rule violation to be acted upon, one thing they don't normally consider is that once every insignificant violation is in play there's an opportunity to reconsider whether those should actually be violations in the first place.

Right now our rule- and lawbooks are full of tiny, silly, or even wrongheaded infractions that most wouldn't consider necessary, but so long as they are just ignored they're never thought about... that is until someone goes out specifically looking for violations to pin on an individual.

Improved enforcement (which is what these cameras really bring, for better or worse) doesn't just shine daylight on the violator, but also on the rules themselves.

Anyway, just another little factor to the equation...

 

[Ispolkom]

The main problem you have here is what you call the slippery slope.

It's always helpful when a post is headed with the logical fallacy it comes under.

Cab cameras do not equal red light cameras do not equal toilet cameras. Work place safety is not the same as traffic safety is not the same as... umm... hygiene.

While red light cameras are unconstitutional in my state, I'm always fascinated by explanations drivers give for violating traffic laws. The reports I read indicate that drivers are very good at obeying signals that have cameras, even nonfunctioning ones, and that the decrease in side collisions from cars running red lights is much higher than the increase in rear-end collisions.

With regard to the Sunset Limited engineer, I would rather she be alert and monitoring the large piece of equipment she is running by herself. Her spouse can find out that the train is going to be late the same way we do, by calling Julie. Somehow people got by for generations without cellphones, and I'd suggest that people operating large vehicles (say, larger than a go-cart) ought not to use them.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

When people start complaining that cameras will allow every minor rule violation to be acted upon, one thing they don't normally consider is that once every insignificant violation is in play there's an opportunity to reconsider whether those should actually be violations in the first place.

Get real. Rules exist to circumvent other rules. They exist to put controls on things, for good and bad reasons. Some rules exist for good reasons, but a lot of them exist to give government the machinery it needs to crunch over people when they see fit to do so. It is the very nature of our system that it is like that. Rewriting everything in a manner that makes sense would require a full blown revolution, a new constitution, and then 2-300 years hence you'd have to do it again.

It's always helpful when a post is headed with the logical fallacy it comes under.
Cab cameras do not equal red light cameras do not equal toilet cameras. Work place safety is not the same as traffic safety is not the same as... umm... hygiene.

While red light cameras are unconstitutional in my state, I'm always fascinated by explanations drivers give for violating traffic laws. The reports I read indicate that drivers are very good at obeying signals that have cameras, even nonfunctioning ones, and that the decrease in side collisions from cars running red lights is much higher than the increase in rear-end collisions.

With regard to the Sunset Limited engineer, I would rather she be alert and monitoring the large piece of equipment she is running by herself. Her spouse can find out that the train is going to be late the same way we do, by calling Julie. Somehow people got by for generations without cellphones, and I'd suggest that people operating large vehicles (say, larger than a go-cart) ought not to use them.

Driving a car is a free-form operation. Cars can go anywhere and do so at any speed. The rule books for driving are guidlines. Stray too far from those guidelines and you get a ticket. If the system was too rigid, it would be unsafe. Too many variables take place when driving a car.

As for your comment on red light cameras, you are right. They do decrease the number of ran red lights. They decrease the number of accidents due to actually running a redlight by about 10%- most red light running is being done on the edge, and it doesn't create many accidents. People who are racing through and cause the major accidents are drunk, crazy, or both, and don't give a crap about cameras.

However, the main purpose of traffic light cameras is revenue. It increases it substantially, and states work to do even more. Point one: the average distance traveled at the speed limit between the time the light turns yellow and the light turns red is about 40% lower for lights that have cameras then ones that don't- thereby increasing the chance of getting an early red runner. Secondarily, and more safety oriented, when New York City instituted its red light cameras, the number of rear endings in NYC went up by about 30%, and the number of rear-endings occuring to the first car at a traffic light went up 317%.

Safety focused indeed.

As for our Sunset Limited engineer, I don't consider sitting at a red signal on a siding for 4 hours twidling their thumbs an example of running a big piece of equipment. Sitting and doing nothing is likely to lead to boredom, and boredom to dulled reflexes when the train starts moving again. In that way, you could argue that her reading improves the safe operating of the train.

 

[Chatter163]

The main problem you have here is what you call the slippery slope. Every year in every way, more electronic devices monitor us and watch us, checking our behavior. They are put there for "safety", which really means enforcing rules.
Let me give you an example of where it is not a good thing. Normally I stop at every red light. In fact, I'm pretty conservative about it. But here are a few scenarios:

1) As I'm approaching, it turns yellow. As is normal, I look in my reaview mirror as I begin to downshift in preparation for stopping. Behind me, though, is an ancient pickup truck, about 4 inches off my bumper. Deciding that I don't want to risk being rear-ended, I enter the intersection just as the light turns red. The pickup truck has slammed on its brakes and stops, its nose perhaps 3-4 feet into the intersection, 6-7 feet past the cross walk. This happend once. I got a ticket, and lost it in court. Had I stopped, I'd probably be dead.

2) Its a rainy day. The light turns yellow. As has happened a few times, when I step on my brakes, my ABS light comes on. ABS computer failure- or I screwed up and pumped the brakes accidentally and shut the thing off (an odd MB feature that I find both useful and frustrating). Either way, if I brake hard I'm going to enter the intersection anyway, probably sideways. Run through the intersection after taking my foot off the brake.

3) Its a cold winter day. No precipitation recently, no reason to suspect ice. Driving along at the speed limit or slightly above. Light turns yellow at that point where its flip a coin as to whether to stop. As I'm approaching I see that at some point something spilled on the road right near the intersection. It is now a sheet of ice. If I brake through it, I'm going to slide into the intersection. Take my foot off the brake and go through.

In each situation, unusual, but not obvious, circumstances prevailed that made a normally unsafe action (running a red light) not only wise, but the safe choice. Cameras can't see that. There are people in this country who have run red lights, with damned good reasons to do so, with tickets and points on their license for doing so.

So already we are using these watchdogs to the detrement of people who were doing the careful, safe option. A cop watching the red light would have seen the truck up my six. He would have pulled over the truck, and left me alone. A cop would probably have pulled me over for the second one, but I could show him the lit ABS light and explain why I did it. He'd probably let me off. I could probably explain the third one, too- and the cop could walk back and look to see the ice on the road.

But the camera can't see any of this. Standing in the location, a cop can gauge the reasonableness of the story. In court, it sounds like BS with no supporting evidence. By the time I know I'm ticketed, the truck has moved on, I've shut off my car (ABS computer resets) and that sheet of ice has long evaporated.

Where does it end? At what point do we decide that we are beginning to infringe on people's privacy. At what point do we decide that safety has reached a point where furthering it is less then then the detriment to our quality of life and freedom?

An engineer is supposed to do his job. Shouldn't read war and peace. But what about that engineer running a Sunset Limited that is spending 4 or 5 hours sitting. Is it not reasonable for him to have the oppurtunity to read, or even call his wife to tell her that he will be VERY late for dinner? Abnormal circumstance. But they exist.

I'm not that concerned about this camera. Probably won't be too concerned about the next. But how long is it from now that I have to be watched taking a dump in a public restroom so as to make sure I do the safe thing, wiping down the seat with disinfectant wipes? (I do clean up after myself in restrooms, incase you were wondering)

Tell me, VentureForth- where DOES it end?

Nothing posted above has ANYTHING to do with privacy issues. There is no slippery slope here (except maybe the ice in scenario three). Each of the three scenarios presented demonstrates how cameras, by their limited points of view, may provide incomplete and imperfect perspectives of documented events. However, that reality is unrelated to privacy issues, which was the point of discussion here.

 

[Amtrak839]

Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES This is exactly WHY the cameras are needed! What the heck are engineers thinking letting someone pull the throttle on a locomotive carrying human beings??? I might could understand a short line going 20 MPH, but Amtrak???

Well, the engineer was with them both the entire time, telling them what to do step by step ("put it into run 8, then sound the horn for this crossing"). There's really no danger in a situation like this, the engineer is still in complete control, and can grab the throttle, brake, or horn at any time.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES This is exactly WHY the cameras are needed! What the heck are engineers thinking letting someone pull the throttle on a locomotive carrying human beings??? I might could understand a short line going 20 MPH, but Amtrak???

Well, the engineer was with them both the entire time, telling them what to do step by step ("put it into run 8, then sound the horn for this crossing"). There's really no danger in a situation like this, the engineer is still in complete control, and can grab the throttle, brake, or horn at any time.

I have to say that much as I'd like to get my hand on the throttle of a P42, your perspective on the issue DOES rather reinforce the point of the camera.

 

[leemell]

When people start complaining that cameras will allow every minor rule violation to be acted upon, one thing they don't normally consider is that once every insignificant violation is in play there's an opportunity to reconsider whether those should actually be violations in the first place.
Right now our rule- and lawbooks are full of tiny, silly, or even wrongheaded infractions that most wouldn't consider necessary, but so long as they are just ignored they're never thought about... that is until someone goes out specifically looking for violations to pin on an individual.

Improved enforcement (which is what these cameras really bring, for better or worse) doesn't just shine daylight on the violator, but also on the rules themselves.

Anyway, just another little factor to the equation...

One other thing that seems lost here, the camera can vindicate just as well as incriminate. Ask any cop whose patrol car is equipped with video cameras. Most cops love those things now, even though they fought them tooth and nail to try to prevent the installation. The BLE is far too defensive on this, they should look at both sides. BTW, the cameras look inside and out.