When Safety Technologies Backfire and How Managers Can Prevent It

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 overreliance.

Other drivers move in the opposite direction. They place too much trust in automated features and assume the truck will correct mistakes. As the system intervenes repeatedly, some drivers become less attentive. They anticipate less and react more slowly when something unexpected happens.

In both cases, the outcome is the same. Judgment weakens.

Technology does not eliminate the need for attention and skill. In some cases, it quietly reduces both.

The real problem is not technical

Managers often see safety systems as neutral tools that provide objective evidence. Drivers often see surveillance, misaligned alerts, and enforcement from people who are not in the cab.

That gap matters.

The study shows that the same technology can improve behavior or degrade it depending on how drivers make sense of it. That sensemaking is shaped by managers. When the system is framed as control, drivers resist. When it is framed as support, drivers engage.

The technology stays the same. The outcome changes.

What actually shifts behavior

Managers who get better results do not rely on the system alone. They use the data to guide how drivers interpret what happened and what to do next.

Three practices stand out.

They ground conversations in evidence. Video and event data create a shared view of what actually occurred. Managers who review short clips with drivers turn abstract scores into concrete situations. They ask the driver to describe what they saw, then compare that account with the footage. The discussion stays focused on specific actions and realistic alternatives. That reduces defensiveness and improves recall.

They explain the purpose before problems occur. Managers who connect the technology to the driver’s own safety get more buy-in than those who focus on compliance. Stories from the fleet help. A driver who resisted a feature but later reported less fatigue. A case where location data allowed a rapid medical response. These examples shift the framing. The system is not there to monitor the driver. It is there to protect them.

They show where the system is right and where it is not. Drivers pay attention to managers who understand how the technology works and who acknowledge false positives. When a warning misfires, calling it out builds credibility. That credibility carries into later coaching, where context matters.

What leaders should take from this

Adding more technology will not fix behavior on its own. If the system feels intrusive, people will resist it. If it feels reliable enough to replace judgment, people will lean on it.

Both responses reduce safety.

The leverage point is managerial use of the technology. Data needs interpretation. Interpretation requires trust. Without that, even well-designed systems fall short.

Leaders who treat these tools as enforcement mechanisms will get compliance at best and avoidance at worst. Leaders who use them to improve how people see and understand their own behavior will get better outcomes.

The takeaway

Safety technology creates a tension. It can sharpen judgment or erode it.

Which direction it goes depends less on the system and more on how it is introduced, explained, and reinforced.

Used well, it helps drivers see risks they would otherwise miss. Used poorly, it either gets ignored or replaces the very judgment it was meant to support.

That is the line managers have to manage.

For a deeper look at the research behind these findings see:

Hazarika, S., Scott, M., Fugate, B., & Sabherwal, R. (2026). When Safety Technologies Backfire: How Monitoring Affects Drivers’ Safety Behavior. Journal of Business Logistics, 47, e70057. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.70057