Thursday, Feb. 24, 2005 | 9:44 a.m.
Drivers for Southern Nevada's largest transit operator now routinely find themselves captured by a not-so-candid camera designed to keep problem operators in check.
And almost 700 of them aren't smiling.
The Regional Transportation Commission's citizens advisory committee on Wednesday reviewed a presentation by San Diego-based DriveCam, the firm that sells palm-sized cameras and related software to transit systems nationwide, including buses operated by RTC contractor and Citizen Area Transit operator ATC.
The cameras, which cost Chicago-based ATC about $1,000 each and were installed in all CAT buses late last year, measure the G-force within the bus created by sudden stops or hard turns. It then keeps the 10 seconds before and 10 seconds after the incident, Valerie Chereskin, a spokeswoman for DriveCam, said.
The DriveCam systems differ from the Mobile View cameras bought in late 2003 with a $2.5 million federal grant secured to replace an aging security system. Both systems are in place in each of the RTC's 305 CAT buses, RTC spokeswoman Sue Christiansen said.
Unlike the Mobile View cameras, used to prevent violence aboard the buses, the DriveCam systems were installed at ATC's request and are used to monitor drivers' behavior, she said.
But the footage they capture, which Chereskin and other proponents say is used to coach drivers on potentially unsafe driving habits, is too often used to punish employees for what are often minor offenses, Rick Valero, president of Amalgamated Transit Workers Local 1637, the union that represents 695 valley bus drivers, said.
Valero said he supported the cameras' installation at first, but that a promised instruction period by ATC was never offered, leaving drivers forced to explain an incident recorded by the cameras to supervisors up to a month after it occurred.
"They're getting a lot of drivers fired," he said. "I would have no problem with DriveCam if they would use it as a teaching tool instead of a disciplinary whip."
Jim Wolf, the vice president and general manager for ATC, would not say how many drivers have been disciplined or fired as a result of the cameras' footage. He described the cameras as a "behavior modification tool" that would be used for training and could dramatically reduce the number or risky maneuvers drivers make.
In ordinary use, the cameras are triggered about 10 times in a 24-hour period, a number Wolf said regularly falls after drivers adjust to the cameras.
"It was never our intent to make this a disciplinary thing," Wolf said. "We didn't install the system so we could identify or discipline our operators. ... On many occasions, we'll pull someone in to tell them, 'you did a great job' or 'you handled this correctly.' Many times it'll be a commendation or a kudo to the operators."
Last year ATC senior vice president W.H. "Bill" McCloud in April publicly apologized to the RTC after reports of rude operators and told commissioners the company was undertaking a "comprehensive program to root out unprofessional drivers."
The local union president said he supported enforcement of the company's professional standards but that the cameras allowed management to embark on a "witch hunt" to weed out senior drivers, many of whom earn up to $18 an hour.
Valero, himself an ATC driver for six years, recalled when a bird struck the windshield of his coach earlier this month. The vibration triggered the windshield-mounted camera and caused the camera to start recording.
He said he faced no disciplinary action from his superiors, but that he had to file an incident report and explain what happened to his supervisor.
It's the kind of complaint Valero said he hears almost everyday.
"It just seemed ridiculous," he said of the bird-versus-windshield incident. "I don't know where they want to go with this, but I'm getting a good idea. It's just not good for the senior driver."
Wolf and the RTC's Christiansen said they did not know of any friction between transit management and the drivers' union.
DriveCam's Chereskin said complaints like Valero's were rare, as drivers in dozens of cities nationwide have touted the cameras as an impartial witness to more severe incidents.
In many cases, the cameras have helped prove a transit driver was not at fault for a crash or other serious event, she said.
"It clearly shows who's at fault," Chereskin said. "Many times the commercial vehicle is blamed when they're not (to blame)."
A legal opinion released by Zev Kaplan, the RTC's general counsel, disputed the claims, saying that existing law permits such recordings with appropriate signage indicating the cameras' presence.
"Having been given notice that recording may take place, the individual by choosing to remain in the vehicle has consented to the recording," the opinion reads.
In October, the Nevada Taxicab Authority approved a regulation to require Clark County's 16 tax companies install cameras in their nearly 2,500 cabs by April 1. That regulation, which must now go to the state's Legislative Counsel Bureau, came after the August death of cab driver Pairoj Chitprasart, who was doused with gasoline and set ablaze in a robbery attempt.
Friends and family said Chitprasart, 51, was an active proponent for cameras in cabs.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a complaint based on the regulations late last year, arguing the audio and video recordings would violate customers' privacy rights.
Valero said no driver has yet filed a grievance with the union, but that he expects to matter to come to a head soon.
"It is definitely something I will be filing a grievance on in the near future," he said. "I have no doubt."
archive
