Grady Brain

Brought to you in partnership with the Journal of Business Logistics   Companies are investing heavily in safety technology. Trucking fleets now rely on cameras, collision warnings, lane alerts, adaptive cruise control, and automated braking to reduce crashes and protect drivers. That investment assumes a straightforward outcome. More technology should lead to safer behavior. It does not always work that way. Research in the Journal of Business Logistics shows that the same technologies designed to improve safety can also undermine it. The difference comes down to how drivers experience the tools and how managers use them. The problem is not the system. It is the interaction around it.   How safety technology fails in practice The study points to two common patterns that show up across fleets. The first is avoidance. Some drivers ignore or disable alerts. They cover inward-facing cameras or override automated features. This behavior shows up when the system feels intrusive or disconnected from real driving conditions. Frequent warnings and false alarms create frustration. Experienced drivers, in particular, may feel the technology challenges their judgment rather than supports it. When that happens, drivers do not adapt to the system. They route around it. The second pattern is…

This post is written in partnership with Reuters Events: Supply Chain. Reuters Events connects the world’s most senior supply chain leaders through conferences, research, and digital content. Learn more: events.reutersevents.com/supply-chain/usa   When decisions cannot keep pace with change There is a moment most planning leaders recognise right now: A tariff announcement lands. A carrier pulls capacity. Demand accelerates faster than the forecast adjusts. The decision window compresses, and by the time there is confidence in the data, the cost of delay is already building. These pressures across supply chains are not new. What has changed is the speed at which conditions move underneath a decision, often faster than organisations are set up to respond. Customer expectations do not flex when supply does not. The cost of a wrong call, whether inventory in the wrong market, capacity committed too early, or service levels slipping before anyone flags them, compounds quickly. Most organisations have responded by investing. Better tools. More data. AI pilots. Network reviews. The core problem persists: decisions are still being made without full confidence. Planning and execution do not align when conditions change. In many cases, the issue is not disruption itself. It is how long organisations take to…