Most insurance carriers are requiring their policyholders with fleets to have camera-based or other telematics systems in place just to secure coverage. Lower premiums may be a benefit. Contractors with fleets of all types continue to face two challenges: Underwriting rigor in the commercial auto liability insurance marketplace and finding good drivers to keep their vehicles on the road.
With nuclear verdicts still a growing trend, all insurers that write commercial auto liability insurance require their policyholders to have good fleet controls in place, whether the vehicles being driven are owned by the contractor, owned by the employee, or are leased or rented.
Some insurance carriers have taken this a step further by requiring their policyholders with commercial motor vehicle fleets to have camera-based or other telematics systems in place just to secure coverage.
Telematics use continues to grow
While more traditional controls, such as ongoing motor vehicle registration (MVR) checks and driver training programs, are still expected, telematics systems — especially those with cameras — are of more interest to both employers and insurers, and more systems are being put into use every year. These systems are also of great interest to those operating their own commercial vehicles as owner-operators.
According to Berg Insight, 2.9 million dash cameras were in fleet vehicles in the US in 2021,1 but this number doesn't take into account the one-off dashcams in many owner-operator trucks that aren't attached to any large provider or ongoing subscription. North America dominates the global fleet dashcam market, accounting for over 35% market share in 2024.2
The market for dashcams is projected to continue to grow quickly. Depending on the source, the projected growth rate ranges from a compound annual growth rate of 13% to figures north of 20% over the next several years.3
Fleet camera systems often exonerate drivers
When it comes to contractor-owned fleets, there are still some large differences of opinion around the type of cameras that should be in use, who should have access to the data and how recording is done, which will be discussed later in this article.
Agreements between telematics providers and insurers (generally to provide equipment purchase discounts to their policyholders) are more common than they were just a few years ago. Insurers are also willing to negotiate to lower premiums based on camera use, and there is talk of future formulaic premium decreases based on camera use with some carriers. The favorable premiums could be because road-facing telematics camera data exonerates the driver of commercial motor vehicles in about 63% of cases.4 Exoneration alleviates liability and costs for the carrier and reduces blowback that tends to hit the employer, sometimes in very public ways.
Another newer development: Contractors and insurers are entering into agreements that lower premiums if the insurer has direct access to the contractor's telematics data. When this type of agreement is in place, the carrier offers assistance in areas where the data may show problems. Presumably, the carrier could make recommendations and require prompt responses to maintain lower premiums. They could potentially even make decisions about insurability based on a lack of response or troubling data.
Even in the case of a camera proving that the driver was at fault, insurance carriers and defense attorneys tend to agree that having that information early in the process enables them to seek early settlement, which ultimately can benefit both the insurer and the employer.
ATRI reports that driver-facing camera units exonerate in about 49% of cases (versus 39% where they may indicate fault and 12% where they're neutral), but driver acceptance of driver-facing cameras isn't nearly as widespread as for road-facing cameras.4 It's important to note that the primary use of driver-facing cameras isn't always exoneration — it's intended to provide an opportunity for both the driver and the employer to improve safety performance and inform their safety programs and coaching.
The case for driver-facing cameras
Litigation outcome — which is reactive rather than preventive — isn't the only measure of telematics effectiveness. The primary goal of using driver-facing and road-facing cameras is to decrease hazards and exposure by increasing good defensive driving habits such as following at a safe distance, decreasing distraction, correctly checking and adjusting mirrors and avoiding fatigue.
Many of these habits are impossible to monitor and effectively coach (or self-coach for that matter) with only road-facing cameras. In ATRI study, insurers reported a 10%-45% decrease in claims among policyholders that installed driver-facing cameras.4 Of course, this success depends on proper coaching and system management to increase good driving habits and, therefore, eliminate close calls and claims.
Some may feel that professional drivers shouldn't need this type of input to maintain good habits. However, all drivers — and humans in general — benefit from reminders and cues to maintain good habits, and the numbers seem to be support this observation. Key camera providers typically claim their systems reduce accident rates by 50% while cutting claims costs by 60%-80%. Past independent studies show similar numbers related to decreases in event triggers and incidents.
Simply putting a camera in a cab doesn't result in changes in behavior — or at least not on this scale. The camera system must be supported by consistent and quality coaching, as well as ongoing measurements of triggering events and incidents. Fleets that have already exceptional safety records without the use of cameras may see a smaller benefit from using cameras, but it's unlikely they'll see no benefit at all.
Will employees accept driver-facing cameras?
Driver acceptance of driver-facing cameras isn't universal. The ATRI study bears that out. But non-universal acceptance doesn't mean employers can't gain ground in this area, with their drivers eventually accepting and even embracing these systems.
Not all camera systems function the same way. Some systems allow real-time streaming or can be triggered by their contractor employer at any time. It's understandable that drivers might find this intrusive, especially with some abuses of this type of system publicized in recent years.
With other camera systems or settings, the camera records only when an event triggers them and capture only a specific period before and after the triggering event. Driver, attorney and insurance carrier responses in the ATRI survey all favored this type of setup, which helps ensure a reasonable amount of privacy for drivers during their time driving and prevents superfluous data from being used inappropriately.
Ultimately, a holistic safety-focused approach benefits drivers by protecting their reputation and allowing them to enjoy a safer and potentially longer career.
The employer also benefits, through decreased direct and indirect costs and public relations risks. Fewer close calls and triggering events equal fewer actual crashes over time.
Boosting driver acceptance: Start with clear communication
The dollars and cents argument for cameras in general, and even for driver-facing cameras, is easy to make. The more difficult question is what will happen to your driver pool if you install them? Will there be a mass exodus, or will drivers stick around?
An increasing number of fleets are adopting inward-facing cameras, and this year one of the largest fleets in the US announced the successful completion of a pilot program. As a result, they plan to implement driver-facing cameras across their entire fleet, rolling them out to approximately 27,000 trucks over the next two years.
As time goes on, fewer fleets will remain camera-free. Drivers tend to be more accepting of this type of technology if employers communicate clearly and let them know exactly how cameras will be used and when they are and aren't recording. The large fleet group communicated that information in a video directly from its COO, which was sent to all its drivers.
Some contractor companies start with a pilot program to study how the system will work with their specific fleet and how their drivers may react on a smaller scale. If they record exoneration videos during that time, they can use them in driver meetings or in other contexts to gain buy-in for a larger rollout. We highly suggest doing a pilot, but if that isn't possible in your situation, consider using generic exoneration videos provided by the camera vendor.
Continued success requires a collaborative approach
Behavior change programs come with some predictable ups and downs and require changes over time to continue to show successful outcomes. Any large vendor of camera systems should be able to help an employer — from rollout and communication of the new program all the way to employer training on how to coach and logistical management of the data volume entering the system.
To keep things going, companies should strongly consider rewarding drivers who perform well in the system or who show professionalism in captured video.
A successful camera system program is a long-term commitment that requires resources as well as support from upper management, middle management and drivers.