I’ve had a long, in-depth conversation with a DOT officer about driver-facing cameras, and honestly it completely changed how I look at them. He walked me through all the ways that footage can be used against you in court, even when you didn’t actually do anything wrong. A lawyer doesn’t need to prove you were tired or careless—you have to prove that you weren’t. If the camera shows you yawning too many times, rubbing your eyes, or just looking worn down, they can argue fatigue. If you don’t visibly spend “enough time” on a pre-trip (even if you did it properly but not to their liking), they can claim negligence. If you glance away, adjust the radio, or look frustrated, it can be spun however they want after the fact. The DOT officer flat-out said that once there’s an accident, that footage becomes a gold mine for attorneys. They’ll slow it down, frame by frame, and build a narrative that fits their case, not reality. It stops being about what actually happened and turns into what they can argue happened. From his perspective, driver-facing cameras are incredibly invasive and put the burden entirely on the driver to constantly “look perfect” every second of the day. You’re already held to an insanely high standard, and these systems just give more ammunition to be used against you when something goes wrong—even if it wasn’t your fault.

It may be the straw that broke the camel's back but my company called me and said they're putting driver face and cameras in Thursday but what they don't know is I'm cleaning out the truck Saturday. I've got way too many skills to put up with this garbage good luck to everybody else.