Angel Coker Jones
Driver- and road-facing cameras, speed limiters, collision mitigation systems, lane departure warning systems, lane-keeping/lane centering systems, telematics and ELDs. These technologies are all measures many fleets have implemented to increase safety, but a large portion of the truck driver population would disagree that these are beneficial in reducing safety risks.
In fact, in CCJ’s 2024 What Drivers Want survey, more drivers said these systems reduce rather than improve driver safety.
When asked which technologies have the greatest impact on reducing driver safety, 67% said speed limiters, while 54% said driver-facing cameras, and 46% said ELDs. When asked which technologies have the greatest impact on improving driver safety, 61% said forward-facing cameras, while 31% said collision mitigation and lane departure warning systems.
Most drivers have an aversion to any technology in the cab at all with many comments from drivers sharing similar sentiments: “Technology has ruined the industry for drivers;” “Just let me drive the truck, don’t need all of that crap;” “All of this stuff listed is a distraction.”
“We are supposed to be professionals and all the intrusive apparatus that is listed takes the mental aptitude away from the driver,” said Jack Mancini, a driver at Latigo Trucking out of South Carolina.
This attitude can often lead to drivers attempting to disable technology.
“When drivers hate the intervention, they tend to ignore it, or they tend to tamper with the system, both of which are bad,” said Stefan Heck, founder and CEO of AI-powered safety platform Nauto.
It’s all about buy-in, said Dudy Markus, vice president of aftermarket at Cipia, a provider of computer vision AI for driver and cabin sensing, including ADAS and driver fatigue and distraction detection.
He said the key to adoption lies in addressing both practical and psychological barriers, ensuring that safety systems not only perform effectively but also resonate with the priorities of their users.
That was the case with forward-facing cameras.
As previously noted, a large portion of drivers (61%) consider forward-facing cameras to have the greatest impact on improving driver safety, though some noted in comments that it doesn’t actually improve safety so much as it exonerates drivers in the event of a lawsuit. This while 69% of respondents said driver-facing cameras are invasive, and 4% said there should be an option for drivers to disable them in certain situations.
Mark Murrell, president of Carriers Edge, a provider of online driver training for the trucking industry, previously told the CCJ that fleets once experienced the same criticism of road-facing cameras as they are now with inward-facing cameras, but now it has driver buy-in because perception has shifted.
“Drivers didn’t want anybody watching the road or watching what was happening, but then, all of a sudden, we started seeing all of these dashcam videos showing up on YouTube, and it became a way for drivers to share the crazy stuff they were dealing with on a day-to-day basis,” Murrell said. “Then we started seeing more and more stories about how the camera footage had exonerated drivers in crashes, and it was becoming kind of a safeguard and all of a sudden the driver perspective changed completely.”
It’s the same for all technology, Markus said.
He said for safety systems to gain traction, the perceived value must go beyond life-saving benefits. Though, in theory, that should be enough, he said in practice, adoption increases when these systems align with broader incentives.
For fleets, that looks like cost savings, efficiency improvements, regulatory compliance and risk mitigation. For drivers, that looks like bonus checks because of these results.
Markus said once drivers see the benefits and develop confidence in the system, they’re much less likely to attempt to disable it.
Fleets may experience drivers tampering with technology like cameras, from tossing an article of clothing over the lens to “accidentally” breaking the instrument. When it comes to other technology that drivers don’t perceive as an invasion of privacy, they may attempt to deactivate it simply because it can be annoying.
“Poor solutions with high false positives lead to alert fatigue, which is one of the primary reasons drivers attempt to override safety systems,” Markus said. “Systems must demonstrate their value in enhancing driver safety by providing accurate, timely feedback.”
In instances of unreliable technology, Markus said disabling it might benefit safety by reducing driver distraction, but disabling a quality system that prevents unsafe behaviors like unbuckled seatbelts or texting while driving can have life-threatening consequences.
“Loud alerts for objects on the passenger side can scare drivers into jerking the wheel. And following distance buzzers dramatically increase anxiety,” Terrence Hyden, a driver out of Orlando, said in response to the What Drivers Want survey.
Markus said if the initial system configuration properly accounts for varying driving situations, individual driver adjustments are typically minimal, and fleets get more buy-in from drivers.
He said a comprehensive safety system goes well beyond a simple dashboard camera.
“It should be automotive-grade and adaptive per fleet-specific needs, combining ADAS with DMS (driver distraction detection) to provide both real-time alerts and driver analytics that support ongoing skill improvement,” Markus said. “When all these elements are in place, instances of drivers disabling safety technology become negligible.”
