Smart Connectivity Solutions

This article was originally published on Fleet HV News and is republished here with permission.

‍Source: Eyes in the cab: balancing safety and surveillance

___

‍

In-cabin cameras are one of the best safety tools available to fleet operators, but deployment can be fraught. Zetifi CEO Dan Winson on the decisions that determine how well or badly a roll-out lands.

Deploying fleet cameras isn’t a guarantee they’ll be used. In many cases they’re not. The hardware may be installed and the platform configured but six months later the Fleet Manager is the only person who logs in. Incidents are still reviewed after the fact, rather than prevented, the workforce is quietly resentful, and the safety scores look much the same as they ever did.

In many such instances, the technology isn’t the problem. What separates the programs that change outcomes, from those that don’t, is a set of decisions made upfront.

Why deploy cameras at all?

The safety case for cameras has strengthened considerably as the technology has improved. AI-powered systems can detect phone use, fatigue, smoking, and seat belt non-compliance in real time and alert the driver in the cab when something needs attention. Footage stored in the cloud can be made available immediately when an incident needs reviewing. Fleet operators using this technology report meaningful drops in at-fault incident rates, faster resolution of disputed claims, and lower insurance premiums over time. That’s the kind of compliance evidence regulators and large enterprise customers increasingly expect to see. Then there’s the driver-protection angle. The same footage that monitors behaviour is the footage that clears a driver when someone else causes an incident.

Decision one: Dashcam or connected solution?

A basic dashcam records footage that can be useful after an incident, but it can’t help prevent one from occurring. A connected solution that integrates with your telematics platform, generates event-based alerts, supports driver coaching workflows, and feeds data into your operational reporting does. If your goal is protection from contested liability claims, a dashcam may be sufficient. If it’s reducing incidents over time, the connected layer is what does that work.

Decision two: Outward-facing, inward-facing, or both?

Outward-facing cameras capture what happens on the road. They tend to be an easier sell to workers and unions because they’re clearly oriented toward external protection. Inward-facing cameras that monitor driver behaviour are more prone to privacy pushback. Long-haul fleets where fatigue is a known risk have a good case for the latter while urban fleets doing short runs may find outward-facing cameras suffice. A staggered approach works in some settings: outward-facing first, with inward-facing introduced once trust is established. Workplace surveillance legislation also varies and legal advice is essential.

Decision three: Do you need AI event detection?

AI event detection is what turns a recording system into a safety program. It enables real time, in-cab coaching, automatic event flagging, driver safety scores, and the kind of targeted alerting that scales beyond what a manager can review manually. If you want to identify your highest-risk drivers before they have an incident, run a coaching program that’s responsive to individual behaviour, or generate the compliance records that insurers increasingly expect, AI is what makes that possible. If your use case is purely evidentiary you can get there without it, but you’re leaving most of the value on the table.

Decision four: How aggressive should the alerting be?

This is the decision that separates programs that work from programs that drift. Systems configured too aggressively flood drivers with in-cab notifications and managers with event alerts. After a while, both groups stop responding to what they perceive as excessive noise. Getting the thresholds right during your pilot phase will result in a genuine safety uplift, not an irritant to be tuned out.

Decision five: Where should the alerts go?

Camera platforms route alerts within their own portal by default, which means the fleet manager sees them and the rest of the organisation mostly doesn’t. That’s a problem because fleet safety isn’t only a fleet management activity. WHS, HR, and operations managers all have legitimate reasons to see safety data, but having to log into a fleet portal can be an impediment. When alerts are only visible to fleet teams, the follow-up actions they should trigger, such as coaching, retraining, and pattern-based escalation, often don’t happen.

Microsoft 365 is foundation technology for most organisations. That makes  it the optimum environment for safety alerts to land. Rather than an alert sitting in a generic inbox, a critical event from the camera system can route to the right supervisor in Teams the moment it triggers, with the responder named and the workflow defined. A pattern of harsh-braking events from one driver can trigger an automated coaching task. Driver safety scores can sit in Power BI alongside other operational data for regular leadership review, rather than being presented in a standalone monthly report. The camera vendor’s portal isn’t where the safety program runs; it’s where the data is generated. The program runs in the workflows that follow.

The conversation that has to happen

These technical decisions matter. So does the way the human aspects of a camera roll-out are managed. Telling drivers they’re going to be monitored continuously is rarely a popular announcement, and the resistance, when it comes, is often a reasonable response to a change that hasn’t been properly explained. Workers who don’t understand why cameras are being installed and what will happen to the footage will inevitably reach for the worst-case interpretation. Engaging with the workforce early can help avert industrial unrest and improve the likelihood of successful uptake. The footage that monitors a driver is the same footage that protects them, and most drivers recognise that when it’s explained clearly. For organisations committed to fleet safety, it’s one of the most important conversations you can have.

This article was originally published on SMBTech and is republished here with permission.

‍Source: Your Drivers Aren’t Wrong To Be Suspicious Of Fleet Cameras

___

‍

It’s easy to attribute the resistance to misunderstandings and poor messaging. Both can be factors. But often the workers asking hard questions are doing exactly what you’d want them to do. That is, noticing that the rules are changing and asking why.

Telematics Already Crossed Lines

Most fleets were collecting large amounts of data well before cameras arrived. Location, fuel consumption, harsh acceleration, braking and cornering, time on site and idle time were logged, scored and reviewed by managers, often without drivers knowing which events were being flagged or what was being done about them.

The data is, of course, genuinely valuable. Harsh ABCs are leading indicators of crash risk, fuel discrepancy monitoring catches both honest mistakes and occasional fraud and location data is essential for scheduling, dispatch and incident response. The fleets that handle telematics well are those that educate their drivers from the outset. That includes explaining what will be collected, what will trigger a coaching conversation and what will simply be stored. This makes the system feel like a tool rather than a trap.

The fleets that don’t get this right tend to find out, over time, that drivers have stopped trusting the platform and started working around it.

Cameras Raise The Stakes

Telematics watch the vehicle but cameras watch the person. That’s a line a lot of drivers aren’t comfortable having crossed unless there’s a clear conversation about why it’s happening.

The conversation that works isn’t complicated. The same footage that records a driver behaving badly is the footage that clears them when someone else causes an accident. In industries where road incidents generate contested claims, that protection can mean the difference between a driver wearing costs unjustly and walking away with their record intact. Most drivers understand that argument when it’s put to them honestly. Unfortunately, all too many don’t have it discussed at all, prior to the cameras appearing in their cabs.

Configuration choices matter just as much as the conversation. Outward-facing cameras may be sufficient if liability protection is the main goal, while inward-facing monitoring is harder to justify unless fatigue or distraction are known risks. Event-triggered recording is more defensible than continuous recording in most contexts and drivers with strong safety records can reasonably be excluded from the more intensive settings. These choices are easier to discuss with workers when they’re presented as decisions the business has made deliberately, rather than as default system settings.

Workplace surveillance legislation also varies by jurisdiction and the specifics around notice, consent and data handling are detailed enough to necessitate legal advice during the planning stage.

Another common pitfall is alert fatigue. If aggressively configured systems flood drivers with in-cab notifications and their managers with event alerts, both groups will eventually stop responding to either. Running a pilot, with thresholds tuned to proposed alert volumes rather than vendor presets, can put paid to this problem.

Where The Data Ends Up Matters Too

Telematics and camera platforms are the right environment for the fleet team, but they aren’t the right environment for everyone else who has a legitimate interest in the data. This cohort may include WHS Managers, Operations Leads, HR and Supervisors.

When safety data is stored in a fleet portal that most of the organisation does not access, the workflows the data should trigger tend to falter. Coaching follow-ups slip, policy acknowledgements are hidden away in spreadsheets and drivers with declining scores don’t receive the timely refresher training they need.

Routing fleet data into the tools the rest of the business already uses, for example, alerts going through Microsoft Teams, acknowledgements tracked in SharePoint and trends sitting in Power BI alongside other operational data, is what makes the difference between a monitoring system and a working safety programme. Bottom line: The technology is only as useful as the workflows built around it.
‍

Paul Maybon is Chief Product Officer at Zetifi

This article was originally published on Safety Solutions and is republished here with permission.

‍Source: Safety Solutions – Staying alive: how technology can minimise the risks of distracted driving

___

‍

Having drivers on your team who don’t keep their full attention on the road is dangerous on multiple fronts. GEORGE HOLT, Compliance Manager at Zetifi, set out how technology may be able to help.

Twiddling with the sound system, sipping on a hot or cold drink, surreptitiously scrolling or messaging on a phone… There’s a plethora of ways drivers can have their attention taken away from the road, manually, visually and mentally.

And when that happens, the chances of a road accident or incident increase significantly. So much so that distracted driving is the main contributing factor in about 16% of serious casualty road crashes, according to the Australian Automobile Association.

In recent years, mobile phones have emerged as one of the chief causes of driver distraction, here in Australia and around the world.

Taking responsibility for workers’ behaviour on the road

If one of your employees is involved in an incident or accident while they’re on the job and driving a company vehicle, it’s not only a problem for them and the individuals they’ve endangered or injured; it’s a serious risk for your business.

Damage to company vehicles can disrupt operations and push up your insurance premiums; putting a dent in your profitability and bottom line.

Your brand and business reputation may take a hit too, if driver distraction has led to a worker causing serious harm, or worse, to other road users or pedestrians, as well as themselves.

And in today’s times, the legal responsibility for that harm may not fall on the perpetrator alone.

Your organisation could be deemed responsible, as could the individuals who lead it. There’s an onus on directors to mitigate known risks and that means those who don’t take steps to address the danger posed by distracted drivers could potentially find themselves held personally liable for any adverse outcomes that ensue.

Turning to technology to tackle driver distraction

Responsible businesses will already have policies in place to keep their employees safe. Typically, these will preclude eating, drinking, vaping and using devices while driving.

Policies should also mandate regular breaks when workers are travelling long distances. But setting strict rules is one thing; enforcing them can be quite another matter.

That’s where technology has an important role to play. It can help ensure that when workers are behind the wheel they’re not zoning out or turning their attention to text messages and social media feeds on their phone when they should be keeping their eyes on the road.

Devices today can sense worker environments, deliver precise location awareness and create intelligent connections between devices, systems and people, via connectivity, telematics and applications, including vehicle-mounted camera arrays.

The signals they detect and transmit can be swiftly and seamlessly interpreted and forwarded to key personnel responsible for instigating an immediate and appropriate response.

Smart antennas seamlessly integrated with third party applications, such as telematics, can be a game changer. There are several compelling use cases, from context aware tracking to enhance lone worker safety via the use of a smart antenna, to detecting mobile phone usage with a dash camera integrated with edge AI.

The latter can provide accurate, up-to-the-second intelligence on how employees are conducting themselves behind the wheel, along with the ability to correct aberrant behaviour immediately, via alerts, nudges and messages that remind distracted drivers to focus on the road.

Implemented across your company fleet, this technology can be an effective means of reducing the risk of an accident in the moment, and the catalyst for positive changes to your organisation’s driving and workplace culture over the longer term.

Taking smart steps to protect the public and your business

Whatever the nature of your business, ensuring your employees act in a safe and responsible manner when they’re on the job and on the road is critical.

Implementing platforms and processes that demonstrate you’re serious about doing so can help you protect the public, your organisation’s assets and its reputation and bottom line. Having access to technology that allows you to monitor and manage worker safety and on-road behaviour means you can be secure in the knowledge you’re doing all you can to mitigate the risk posed by driver distraction when your workers are behind the wheel.

If having a mobile workforce that’s an asset not a liability is important to your business, it’s an investment that makes excellent sense.