Another speeding ticket. Now what?

What are the biggest/most common driver-related risks you're seeing today?

The behaviors haven't changed much—speeding, distraction and fatigue—but our data shows how persistent they are. In SambaSafety's 2026 Driver Risk Report, speeding was the top major violation category, at 37% of violations; and distracted-driving violations rose 31% over two years.

Each looks like an individual driver problem on the surface—but after 30 years in this business, I can tell you the deeper risk is usually systemic: carriers don't have enough visibility into when, where and why it's happening. Distraction keeps climbing, even when it seems brief. Fatigue shows up indirectly—early-morning backing incidents, late-week rear-end collisions, hard braking after a punishing schedule.

The mistake is treating these as isolated events instead of patterns. The other trap is invisible drivers: when device uptime is weak, or events get pinned on the wrong person, the risk is there, but your program can't see it.

What is one thing trucking executives could do in training their drivers to reduce the most common risks? 

 The best programs do three things well: 

Instead of treating training like an annual event, treat it as the documented response to a specific risk. If a driver is consistently speeding, assign speed management training. If inspection issues show up, address the process behind the violations. If a license is suspended, act immediately. The data tells you who needs attention and what needs to change. The training is how you act on it.

But the piece carriers miss is follow-through. A defensible record isn't "we talked to the driver." It's supported by a dated assignment, a completed module, documented coaching conversations and a trend showing improvement in behavior. 

Drivers often push back against safety monitoring. How can a carrier use dashcams, telematics and other tools without damaging driver morale or retention? 

First, carriers should introduce these tools as coaching and protection, not surveillance. That cultural framing needs to happen before the technology is deployed.

Drivers are more likely to trust the program when they see cameras and telematics used to support fair coaching, identify context and defend drivers against false claims. The first response to a flagged event should be a conversation, not a write-up. 

Second, accuracy is critical. Nothing undermines trust faster than coaching a driver on an event that wasn't theirs. I call it the attribution death spiral. When attribution quality drops, coaching conversations lose credibility, drivers stop trusting the data and the program weakens. Driver attribution is not only a data quality metric. It is a trust metric, and trust is what keeps good drivers in their seats.

Are there barriers for small trucking companies, compared with large ones, to install telematics and generate safety or risk data? 

The perception is that there are big barriers. The reality is that adoption has gotten much more accessible. The technology barrier is much lower now, but operating barriers still exist.

For a smaller carrier, the challenge isn't collecting data. It's knowing what to do with it. Even a basic monitoring program can deliver real insight if it's organized and acted on. A small carrier doesn't need complicated safety bureaucracy—it needs visibility into risk, a repeatable coaching process and a record that proves what happened.

What's changing now is that every carrier, regardless of size, is being held to a higher standard on documenting safety. With increased litigation pressure on both carriers and brokers, companies need structured proof of their safety program.

After decades in the business, I'll say the small fleets that present their data clearly can stand out. Expectations are shifting from size to proof of performance.

How should a fleet manager turn telematics and dashboard alerts into actionable and useful safety decisions? 

Three steps: validate, prioritize, coach.

Validate before acting on alerts. Confirm that device uptime, driver attribution and alert quality are strong enough to support fair coaching decisions. If the data is unreliable, the program risks creating noise, frustration and trust issues. 

Next, prioritize patterns. Do not focus only on raw event volume. Look for repeated behaviors, changes over time, route-specific conditions and low coaching responsiveness. A driver who does not improve after documented coaching should move higher on the intervention list. 

Then, coach with structure: use specifics (event, date, location), diagnose the root cause, agree on a behavioral commitment, set a review date and document the conversation. Where you can, keep the person delivering the coaching separate from the person auditing it to keep everyone honest.

What is your No. 1 piece of advice to executives at small motor carriers to minimize driver risk? 

For a small carrier, the most effective risk strategy usually isn't the fanciest technology—it's a steady operating rhythm. Review safety alerts regularly. Document your coaching conversations. Follow up on what drivers have committed to. Make safety part of the weekly management cadence, not an annual event.

That habit matters even more now. After the Supreme Court's Montgomery v. Caribe decision this spring, freight brokers are looking harder at who they put on a load—and the carriers with a documented risk management program will have the edge.

So my advice is simple: know your risk, act on it and keep the proof. You don't need the biggest safety budget. You need a consistent one.

(Image courtesy Jason Park)