GEOTAB
Key Insights
- GPS jammers block satellite signals, preventing accurate location tracking.
- GPS blocking is Illegal in many countries with steep fines and penalties.
- Jamming and spoofing are different; one blocks, the other fakes a signal.
- Geotab detects GPS jamming and alerts managers in real time.
These days, having movements tracked online and in the real world is becoming more common. For businesses especially, there is a long list of GPS tracking benefits, including improved routing, real-time vehicle monitoring and greater accountability.
While many people are willing to share their location for good purposes, unauthorized access or the use of GPS jammers can pose serious risks to fleet security. That’s why it’s important to choose GPS solutions that prioritize data protection, reliability and proactive threat detection.
What is a GPS jammer?
A GPS jammer is a typically small, self-contained transmitter device used to conceal one’s location by sending radio signals with the same frequency as a GPS device. When this occurs, even the best GPS device is unable to determine its position due to interference.
The relatively low power and quick start-up time allow the jammers to be used only when required. Although illegal, various types of cheap GPS blockers are available for purchase online, such as:
- Physical shields
- Wi-Fi/Bluetooth jammers
- Remote control jammers
- Spy camera jammers
- Drone jammers
How a GPS jammer works
Here’s how a typical GPS jammer operates to interfere with tracking devices:
- The user plugs the jammer into the automotive auxiliary power outlet.
- The jammer is placed close to the installed GPS tracker.
- When active, the GPS jammer generates an interference signal over a 16-to-33-feet radius to disrupt reception of the GPS satellite signal.
To understand how a jammer functions, it is also helpful to know how the Global Positioning System (GPS) works.
A GPS tracker receives microwave signals from an array of satellite transmitters orbiting the Earth. Once the tracker receives signals from four or more satellites, it determines its position through a series of time calculations and trilateration.
The receiver relies on these precise and specific satellite signals to determine where it is in the world. The GPS tracking device then transmits this position and velocity information to a monitoring location, usually sent over the cellular network.
In some cases, satellite malfunction or solar flares can temporarily disrupt the transmission of GPS signals.
A GPS jammer is different in that it sends out radio signals or signal noise with the same frequency as the GPS device to override or distort the GPS satellite signals.
When this occurs, the GPS device can no longer calculate its position because the satellite signal is masked by the interference.
GPS jamming vs. spoofing
While both GPS jamming and spoofing interfere with location tracking, they do so in different ways.
| GPS jamming |
GPS spoofing |
| A GPS jammer emits radio frequency noise on the same frequency as GPS, preventing the device from receiving satellite data. As a result, the GPS device cannot determine its location. |
A GPS spoofer mimics real satellite signals, tricking the GPS device into calculating a false position. This can cause the system to show incorrect routes or locations. |
Jamming disrupts the signal completely, while spoofing deceives the receiver with fake data.
Who uses GPS jammers?
The reasons for using jammers vary. Originally created by the government, GPS jammers were designed for military use. Concealing vehicle location can be crucial to the success of a mission. The devices act as a cloak, giving the military privacy, increased safety and an overall advantage in high-risk situations.
Other uses include:
- Speeding drivers trying to prevent detection by police
- Criminals using GPS jammers to cover vehicle thefts
- Trucking fleet drivers hiding their location from employers
Are GPS jammers legal?
GPS jamming is illegal in many countries, including the U.S., Canada and the U.K. In the U.S., the federal Communications Act of 1934 outlawed the marketing, sale or use of GPS jammers.
In Canada, the Radiocommunication Act also prohibits importing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, possessing and using GPS jamming devices.
Harsh penalties exist for using jammers. For example:
- Fines of up to $100,000 or more in the U.S.
- Imprisonment
- Loss of equipment
How do GPS jammers impact the transportation industry?
To law enforcement and the transportation industry, GPS jammers are both a nuisance and a cause for concern. Jamming interferes with GPS asset tracking, also known as fleet tracking or telematics, which is a critical source of business data to many companies.
Fleets use telematics to track and manage fuel use, idling, driving behavior, engine health and other activities.
Not only are jammers illegal but using them can be potentially dangerous. A New Jersey truck driver was fined almost $32,000 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) when his GPS jamming device interrupted air traffic control information at Newark Liberty International Airport.
The driver used the jammer in his work truck to hide his location from his employer. An FCC investigator located the jammer using radio monitoring equipment and proved it was the cause of the interference.
How to use Geotab for GPS jamming detection
Fleets can use Geotab solutions to minimize the negative effects of GPS blockers and keep drivers from flying under the radar. When a GPS signal is not received, the Trips History map will show a missing or interrupted trip, calling attention to an issue.
If GPS jamming occurs mid-trip, a straight line will be displayed from when jamming starts to the point where the jamming device is turned off.
Anyone monitoring the vehicle will quickly see this and can investigate the cause of the missing trip information.
There may be other reasons for loss of GPS data besides GPS jamming, like a radio that’s not working properly.
A straight line in MyGeotab indicates GPS disruption.
The GPS module in newer Geotab GO units has a jamming detection function that triggers the device to report a debug log. Fleet managers can see this in the MyGeotab log details as: “GpsJammingDetected.”
Set up alerts for GPS jamming
It’s important to note that even when a GPS jammer disrupts GPS receiver functionality, all other functions are unaffected. Despite the lost GPS connection, the Geotab GO device will continue to gather and send critical vehicle-related data such as engine data, driver behavior, error codes and auxiliaries.
GPS jamming protection with Geotab
GPS blockers can compromise fleet safety, visibility and compliance. With Geotab, fleets gain powerful tools for detecting signal interference in real time, alerting managers and preserving critical fleet data even during disruptions.
By investing in secure driver tracking and tamper-resistant technology, fleets can stay ahead of threats and ensure their operations run smoothly, no matter what interference comes their way.
Jason McDaniel
Dec. 2, 2025
FMCSA is introducing a new ELD vetting process that aims to improve road safety and motor carrier compliance.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration now includes hundreds of electronic-logging devices (ELDs) in its list of revoked equipment, with 62 new listings this year alone. The most recently delisted devices include Ontime Logs PT, Green Light ELD, Sahara ELD, Usfast ELD, and ELDwise—all added in November.
“They’re certainly getting a better handle on the issue because that list was all self-certified, so all those ELD providers put themselves on the list initially,” Justin Sanders, Transafe safety consultant and log auditor, told Bulk Transporter. “So, motor carriers got locked into three-year contracts with certain providers, and when they weren’t doing what they said they would do, as far as ELDs, telematics, or whatever, that carrier filed a complaint with FMCSA, and they investigated.
“Also, with the audits of all these different ELD providers, they have discovered that key data points—engine hours, odometer readings, or whatever it is—weren’t being reported, therefore they’re no longer certified.”
Now FMCSA finally is trying to pull ahead of this persistent problem with a “complete overhaul” of its ELD vetting process that ensures non-compliant devices are blocked before they reach FMCSA’s Registered ELD list. The new, more rigorous process is part of a broader Department of Transportation initiative to strengthen road safety while cutting costs for drivers and carriers, the agency reported.
“American families deserve to feel safe sharing a road with semi-trucks, and we want truck drivers to have the best tools to maximize those safety precautions,” Derek D. Barrs, FMCSA administrator, said in a news release. “By strengthening our review process for ELDs, we are ensuring the industry can rely on trusted equipment and that hardworking drivers are prioritizing their health and well-being, so they are best prepared to keep driving America’s economy forward.”
Under the previous system, implemented in 2017, it was easier to register non-compliant devices or re-register devices that had been revoked, leading to repeated revocations and costly, inconvenient replacements for carriers. FMCSA’s updated process closes this loophole, giving carriers and drivers greater peace-of-mind the ELDs they purchase are accurate, reliable, and compliant.
Key features of the new ELD vetting process include:
- Initial review: Verification of contact information, technical specifications, and device images.
- Fraud detection: Cross-checking new applications against active, inactive, revoked, and in-process lists.
Application categorization includes:
- Category 1 (approved): Application has met all necessary requirements for approval.
- Category 2 (information requested): Application is pending further information from the applicant.
- Category 3 (further review): Application requires additional internal assessment and may require additional documentation from the applicant.
- Category 4 (denied): Application does not meet the required standards for approval.
Doug Marcello
Trucking and Commercial Transportation Attorney at Saxton & Stump
June 29, 2025
The big picture: The Texas Supreme Court overturned a massive jury verdict against Werner Enterprises, ruling that a truck driver staying in his lane below the legal speed limit cannot be held liable when another vehicle crosses a 42-foot median in icy conditions.
What happened
A pickup truck lost control on icy I-20 near Odessa, crossed the wide median, and collided head-on with a Werner semi-truck traveling under the speed limit in its proper lane.
The scene: Dangerous icy conditions had already caused multiple accidents that the Werner truck had passed, with other trucks parked off the roadway for safety.
The devastation: One person died, another became quadriplegic, and two others suffered severe brain and physical injuries.
The verdict: A jury initially awarded nearly $90 million, finding Werner 84% at fault (14% driver, 70% corporate negligence) versus 16% for the pickup driver.
The weather factor
What plaintiffs argued: Werner’s driver and trainer failed to check weather conditions before departure and had no knowledge of freezing rain advisories.
The context: Multiple vehicles had already been involved in weather-related incidents on the same stretch of highway, with trucks pulling over due to dangerous conditions.
The legal reversal
Why it matters: The state’s highest court applied the “substantial factor” test for proximate cause—a practical, common-sense standard that asks whether a defendant was actually responsible for the harm, not just present when it occurred.
The lengthy appeal: This decision culminated a protracted appeals process, with the Texas Supreme Court ultimately ruling that any Werner driver negligence was not the proximate cause.
Deep dive: Proximate cause doctrine
The legal standard: Proximate cause isn’t just about “but for” causation (would the injury have happened without defendant’s conduct). Instead, it requires proof that defendant’s negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing injury.
What “substantial factor” means:
- Incorporates “the idea of responsibility” into causation analysis
- Requires practical perspective using common sense experience
- Must show defendant is “actually responsible for the ultimate harm”
- Being part of the chain of events isn’t enough if involvement was mere “happenstance of time and place”
The court’s reasoning: If defendant’s conduct merely creates conditions that make harm possible, it’s not a substantial factor as a matter of law.
Court’s hypothetical scenarios
Speed argument demolished: Plaintiffs claimed slower speed would have prevented collision. The court noted that if Werner’s driver had been going 100 mph, the pickup also wouldn’t have collided with him.
The analogy: Court compared this to head-on collisions—courts must assign fault to the driver whose negligence made the accident happen, not to a driver whose negligence merely brought him to the time and place where accident occurred.
Alternative scenarios the court considered:
- If no vehicles were in pickup’s path, occupants wouldn’t have been injured
- If Werner truck had been a small car, F-350 could have killed or severely injured those occupants
- Werner driver’s speed only put him at the place and time where accident occurred
Corporate liability implications
Werner’s corporate negligence claims: Even allegations of inadequate training and supervision failed because the underlying driver conduct wasn’t a proximate cause.
The derivative rule: If individual driver’s actions don’t proximately cause an accident, there can be no derivative corporate negligence for failure to train or supervise that driver.
Court’s finding: Claims against Werner corporation fail for the same reason as claims against the driver—the pickup’s loss of control was the sole cause.
The bottom line
Key legal principle: “Substantial factor” means only parties whose substantial role in bringing about injury makes them “actually responsible for the ultimate harm.”
For trucking companies: Being part of the chain of events leading to an accident doesn’t automatically equal liability—courts will examine whether your role was truly substantial or merely “happenstance of time and place.”
The precedent: Even corporate negligence claims (inadequate training, supervision) fail when the underlying driver conduct wasn’t a proximate cause of the accident.
Practical impact: This decision reinforces the requirement that courts apply practical, real-world standards when determining fault in complex accident cases, potentially protecting defendants who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time through no fault of their own.
The court emphasized that proximate cause is “a practical test, the test of common experience” when determining legal rights and liability.
CVSA’s 2025 Out-of-Service Criteria Now in Effect
CVSA’s 2025 North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) are now in effect, as of today, April 1. The new criteria supersede all previous versions. There are different formats (e.g., print, electronic, French, Spanish, etc.) available for purchase through the CVSA online store. The 2025 OOSC are also available in the OOSC app, which is downloadable from App Store or Google Play. To place bulk orders (50 or more) of the handbook or the app, contact CVSA Manager of Administrative Services Wendy Hall via email or call 202-998-1014.
CVSA Supports Nomination of Derek Barrs to Serve as FMCSA Administrator
CVSA released a statement expressing its full support for the nomination of Derek Barrs to serve as administrator of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Barrs’ commitment to commercial motor vehicle safety spans two decades, serving in various law enforcement capacities for the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Highway Patrol. Most recently, he served as associate vice president at HNTB, a transportation infrastructure solutions firm.
Nominate a Professional Driver for the International Driver Excellence Award
Do you know an exceptional commercial truck or motorcoach driver? Nominate them for the International Driver Excellence Award, which recognizes an extraordinary professional commercial motor vehicle driver and their commitment to public safety. The deadline for nominations is Friday, May 9.
CVSA Accepting College Scholarship Applications
CVSA is accepting applications for two $5,000 college scholarship awards. The applicant must be a graduating high school senior who is the legal dependent of a current CVSA member (board members excluded) with a minimum high school grade point average (or equivalent) of 3.0 and must be a citizen or permanent legal resident of Canada, Mexico or the U.S. CVSA will consider academic performance, volunteer work, community service and extracurricular activities. The deadline to apply is April 30.
Register for the CVSA Workshop by April 11
Register for the CVSA Workshop, scheduled for April 27-May 1 in New Orleans, Louisiana. The CVSA Workshop provides the opportunity for enforcement, government officials and industry to continue to work together to advance CMV safety. Registration fees increase in all membership categories by $50 per registrant after Friday, April 11.
Additionally, the North American Cargo Securement Harmonization Public Forum will take place on April 27 from 1-5 p.m. in conjunction with the workshop. This public forum is open to all stakeholders to discuss cargo securement regulations in pursuit of developing and implementing uniform regulatory requirements for the securement of cargo on and within CMVs throughout North America. There is no additional fee to attend; however, separate registration is required. The deadline to register is April 11.
Riky Von Honaker
As a follow up to last month’s article by Michael Nischan on FMCSA’s approved SMS changes, I am providing an assessment of the impact I believe these changes will have. These changes have the potential to significantly impact your scores, both positively and negatively.
I have categorized these changes into three groups: positive, neutral, and negative, based on my assessment. My opinions will primarily focus on the potential impact of these changes on lawsuits, broker interactions, and insurance premiums.
It’s crucial to remember that the CSA/SMS system’s primary objective is to identify carriers that require increased oversight, not to serve as the sole determinant of a carrier’s safety fitness by the FMCSA. Regardless of my opinion on each change, everyone in the industry should have a basic understanding of how this new system will function.
Positive Changes
- Violation grouping – As an example, during a roadside inspection you receive two violations “393.9T and 393.9TS” on your trailer. Because the turn signal is out on the trailer that violation would be marked “Out of Service.” Under the current scoring system both violations would be scored. However, under the new scoring system, as both violations are in the same group, “Lighting – Driver Observed”, only one violation would be scored. In this case the turn signal, as it is the more severe. I feel this will normalize some of the variances between inspections.
- Transferring all “Operating While Out of Service” violations to the “Unsafe Driving” Basic. This makes sense, as it is more of an Unsafe Driving issue rather than a Vehicle Maintenance, Hours of Service, or Driver Fitness violation when drivers continue to operate the vehicle after being placed out of service by an officer or operating while ill, fatigued or impaired.
- Splitting the Vehicle Maintenance Basic. Vehicle Maintenance violations will now be categorized by whether the FMCSA determined the driver should have observed the violation. There will be a new Basic labelled “Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed”. Currently there are 219 violations, of the 1,077 available, that would not qualify as driver observed, and those would remain in the Vehicle Maintenance Basic. While I think this is positive, I am curious as to how the determination is made. There are many violations not included in the driver observed category, that – as a former driver – I feel a driver should notice during a typical pre-trip inspection.
Negative Changes
- All violations having the same point value. The proposed system assigns 1 point to all violations, except for CDL Disqualifying violations or violations resulting in an out-of-service order, which are assigned 2 points.I strongly disagree with this approach. The current point values reflect the severity of the violation. For instance, a false log violation or driving beyond permitted hours of service should carry a higher weight than minor infractions like failing to update the trailer number or sign the log.
Under the new system, these violations would be treated equally if they didn’t lead to an out-of-service order. This is particularly problematic given recent CVSA OOS criteria changes. False logs and hour-of-service violations may no longer result in an out-of-service order under certain conditions, even when they pose significant safety risks.
- Proportionate Percentiles. Safety Event Groups have always been an issue when a carrier is near the top or bottom of that group. For example, if you have a measure of .50 for Hours of Service with 100 driver inspections, your Basic would be at 50% — well under the 65% threshold. However, if you have the same measure with 101 driver inspections, your Basic would jump to 74%. This would also increase your ISS score from 46 optional to 86 inspect. The new system states it would correct this issue by using “benchmark medians.” If it normalizes the jumps, I am behind this 100%.
- Removal From Percentage Calculation. Carriers that have not had a violation in the last 12 months would not be used in the calculation of percentiles.
There are some other changes that would only affect certain carriers. The current maximum average miles per vehicle to allow for a utilization factor is 200,000 miles per vehicle, which would increase to 250,000 miles per vehicle.
Todd A. Gray, Taylor McKnight & Joseph Fiorello
Those who practice transportation law are acutely aware of the accident investigation process. There are essential tasks that must be completed in short order, such as driver and witness interviews, obtaining crash reports, retaining the right accident reconstruction expert, and coordinating and completing inspections of the accident scene and involved vehicles. Of course, this list does not cover the entire gamut of tasks that the transportation law practitioner must complete in the first hours and days of an assignment.
That is not the purpose of this article. Rather, this article is meant to serve as a reminder that our understanding of where crash data can be found must go beyond simply downloading an engine control module (ECM) or air bag control module (ACM).
Electronic data recorders (EDR) are, of course, potential gold mines when it comes to crash data. For a transportation newbie, the concept of what an EDR is and where to find crash data may be limited to the aforementioned ECM and ACM. These modules can be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to securing crash data.
Many vehicles are equipped with other types of modules, devices, and advanced safety systems that record crash data. Experienced transportation law practitioners know that these sources of crash data exist and are keen to ensure that they are identified and downloaded by an expert witness. Since there is often only one opportunity to inspect a vehicle, it is important that all sources of crash data are promptly identified and downloaded, or that the modules and devices that store crash data are removed and preserved for later data extraction.
While the identification of modules, devices, and advanced safety systems within a particular vehicle will largely be handled by the accident reconstruction expert, the lawyer or claims professional must remain engaged and be prepared to ask pointed questions to ensure that crash data is not irrevocably lost. The first step of this process is having a working knowledge of the various types of modules, devices, and advanced safety systems that record crash data, such as those identified below.
The next step is taking the time to speak with your expert before, during, and after the inspection. Unfortunately, many folks skip this step and miss out on an opportunity to
(1) learn from an expert,
(2) verify the inspection protocol to be implemented,
(3) confirm that the expert has researched the potential sources of crash data on a particular vehicle, and
(4) confirm that the expert is prepared to tackle any data collection obstacles that might be encountered.
Below is a non-exhaustive list of the types of modules, devices, and advanced safety systems to be aware of when gearing up for a vehicle inspection. It is vital that these are identified and downloaded to avoid missing out on key crash data that could turn the tide in a case. Of note, data retrieval may require proprietary software, and some equipment may need to be shipped to the manufacturer to be downloaded.
- Collision Mitigation Systems (CMS), such as those manufactured by Bendix and Wabco, installed within commercial trucks can be invaluable sources of crash data. The extent of data available is largely dependent on the specific type of CMS installed within the commercial truck. Some systems are equipped with video capability and, if triggered, may record the critical moments before, during and after an impact. These systems also record vehicle dynamic data, which include but are not limited to speed, time, clutch status, engine RPM, wheel speed, steering wheel input, and acceleration.
- Navigation/GPS devices are often overlooked but can be invaluable sources of crash data. Everyone is familiar with these devices, but many folks are oblivious to the fact that some of these devices are capable of recording second-by-second crash data, and may come equipped with a dash camera affixed to the back of the device.
- Newer motorcycles, such as those manufactured by Kawasaki and Honda, are now coming equipped with EDRs.
- Detroit Assurance is a system that is now standard in 2020 and newer Freightliner Cascadia models. This advanced safety system features active brake assist, adaptive cruise control, and active lane assist, to name a few. Detroit Assurance is an entirely new source for retrieving crash information. The protocol for retrieving data from this system is the same as downloading data from the ECM, but with one important caveat: the data are not accessible absent authorization from Detroit Diesel. Thus, obtaining pre-authorization from Detroit Diesel is a must.
- Newer model Toyota vehicles are often equipped with advanced lane departure systems with cameras. If an event triggers the system, these cameras may record the critical moments before, during, and after an impact.
While data retrieval is but one step in the investigation process, it is one of the most important. Identifying and securing all available crash data is critically important to the development of liability and damages defenses, and protecting against potential spoliation of evidence claims.
