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.
