The Short Answer
In many cases, yes.
A trial allows fleet operators to assess vehicle safety technology on a limited number of vehicles before committing to a wider rollout.
It can help establish whether the system addresses the intended safety or operational requirement, works reliably on the fleet’s vehicles, is practical for drivers and can be installed and supported effectively.
However, a trial is only useful if the fleet knows what it is trying to learn. The vehicles, drivers, operating conditions, trial period and measures of success should be representative enough to support the eventual rollout decision.
Why Trial Vehicle Safety Technology?
Product specifications, demonstrations and supplier information can help fleets assess a proposed system, but they cannot reproduce every aspect of a fleet’s real operation.
Vehicles differ. Routes differ. Drivers work in different environments and safety equipment may behave differently according to where and how it is used.
A trial gives the fleet an opportunity to move from “should this work for us?” to “does this work for us?”
It can also expose practical issues before they are repeated across tens or hundreds of vehicles.
That does not mean every safety-system purchase requires a formal trial. A straightforward installation using familiar technology may present relatively little uncertainty. The case for a trial becomes stronger where the proposed system, application, fleet or rollout is more complex.
What Should A Fleet Decide Before Starting A Trial?
The fleet should first define what it wants the trial to establish. That starts with the reason the technology is being considered.
Is the objective to improve visibility? Reduce a particular type of incident? Provide recorded evidence? Improve hazard detection? Meet a defined requirement? Simplify an existing installation? Introduce a new capability?
From there, the fleet can identify the questions the trial needs to answer. These might include:
- Does the system address the intended requirement?
- Does it meet any relevant regulatory, contractual or industry-standard requirements?
- Does it perform reliably?
- Is the coverage or detection appropriate?
- Are warnings useful and sufficiently accurate?
- Is the system practical for drivers?
- Does it work across the relevant vehicle types?
- How long does installation actually take?
- What support or maintenance is required?
- Are there any unexpected operational issues?
Without clear objectives, a trial can easily become a period in which equipment is fitted and used without producing enough evidence to support a decision. Where equipment is being supplied specifically for the trial, fleets should also understand any trial costs and what will happen to the equipment if they decide not to proceed.
Which Vehicles Should Be Included In A Trial?
The easiest vehicle to install a system on is not necessarily the best vehicle on which to trial it.
Where a fleet contains several vehicle types, body configurations or operating applications, the trial should reflect the vehicles that matter to the proposed rollout.
A system that performs well on one standard tractor unit, for example, should not automatically be assumed to have the same installation or operational requirements on specialist vehicles elsewhere in the fleet.
This does not necessarily mean testing every vehicle type before a rollout can begin.
The aim is to include enough representative vehicles to identify significant differences that could affect suitability, installation, performance or cost.
Which Drivers Should Take Part?
Driver selection matters too. Using only the driver most enthusiastic about new technology may produce a different picture from introducing the system across a wider workforce.
Where practical, a trial can involve drivers with different levels of experience and familiarity with vehicle safety technology.
Their feedback can help establish whether displays, warnings and controls are understandable and whether the system fits normal working practices.
Driver feedback should be considered alongside technical and operational evidence rather than used as the sole basis for the decision.
One driver disliking a warning does not necessarily mean the system is unsuitable. Repeated feedback from several drivers about the same issue is more significant and worth investigating. Drivers taking part should also receive appropriate and reasonably consistent guidance on how the system is intended to operate, so that differences in understanding do not distort the trial results.
How Long Should A Vehicle Safety Trial Last?
There is no single trial period that will suit every system or fleet.
A trial should be long enough for the equipment to experience a representative range of normal operating conditions.
For some applications, several weeks may provide useful evidence. Others may require longer if vehicles operate on varied routes, particular conditions occur infrequently or the fleet wants to assess reliability over a more meaningful period.
A very short trial can show that equipment switches on and performs its basic function, but it may not reveal intermittent faults, unusual operating conditions, maintenance requirements or patterns in driver feedback.
The appropriate period should therefore be determined by what the fleet needs to learn, rather than by an arbitrary number of days.
What Should Fleets Measure During A Trial?
The measures should follow directly from the objectives established at the beginning.
Depending on the technology, fleets may consider:
- whether the intended safety or operational function is being delivered
- driver feedback
- alert accuracy and unnecessary warnings
- camera coverage and image usability
- recording and footage retrieval
- system reliability
- faults or maintenance requirements
- installation time
- vehicle downtime
- support requirements
- any effect on normal vehicle operation
Where the objective involves improving an existing outcome, fleets should also establish an appropriate baseline where possible. This might be previous incident data, existing system performance, installation time, downtime or another measure relevant to the reason for the trial.
Without a useful point of comparison, it can be difficult to determine whether an apparent change during the trial represents a genuine improvement.
Where possible, the fleet should record this information consistently rather than relying on recollection at the end of the trial. That makes it easier to distinguish an isolated complaint or fault from a recurring pattern.
It is also useful to identify who is responsible for collecting the information and reviewing issues during the trial, rather than waiting until the end to bring the findings together.
Should Fleets Record Problems As Well As Benefits?
Yes.
The purpose of a trial is not to prove that a purchasing decision already made was correct.
If equipment produces unnecessary warnings, proves difficult to use, takes longer than expected to install or develops faults, those findings are valuable.
They may show that the proposed system is unsuitable, but they may also identify something that can be corrected before rollout.
A camera may need repositioning. A detection zone may require adjustment. Installation instructions may need refining. Drivers may need clearer guidance. A particular vehicle type may require a different fitting approach.
Finding these issues on a small number of vehicles is generally preferable to discovering them after the same approach has been repeated across the fleet.
Should Installation Be Part Of The Trial?
Yes, where installation will form a significant part of the eventual rollout.
A trial provides an opportunity to establish how the proposed installation works on the fleet’s actual vehicles rather than relying entirely on estimated fitting times.
The fleet and supplier can identify suitable component positions, cable routes, integration requirements and any vehicle-specific issues.
This can also help produce a more realistic estimate of vehicle downtime and installation cost for the wider rollout.
Where multiple vehicle types are involved, the trial may identify differences that need to be incorporated into installation plans before larger numbers of vehicles are scheduled.
Should Fleets Consider Support During The Trial?
Yes.
A trial tests more than the hardware.
If a fault occurs or the fleet has a technical question, the response provides useful evidence about how support may work after a full rollout.
Operators can consider how easily assistance is obtained, how faults are diagnosed, whether replacement components are readily available and how quickly problems are resolved.
A trial in which nothing goes wrong will naturally provide less evidence about support, but fleets can still establish the process that would apply if assistance were required.
This is particularly important where a wider rollout would involve vehicles operating across several depots or geographic areas.
What Should Happen At The End Of The Trial?
The trial results should be compared with the objectives and success criteria established at the beginning.
The outcome does not have to be simply roll out or reject.
A fleet might decide to:
- proceed with the system as trialled
- proceed after making changes
- carry out further testing on another vehicle or application
- alter the proposed specification
- address installation or support issues before rollout
- compare the results with another approach
- decide that the technology is not suitable for the requirement
Any changes identified during the trial should ideally be resolved and, where appropriate, validated before the wider installation begins.
The purpose is to enter the rollout with fewer unanswered questions than the fleet had at the start.
Does A Successful Trial Guarantee A Successful Rollout?
No.
A trial reduces uncertainty, but it cannot reproduce every vehicle, driver, route or situation that may exist across a fleet.
A system that performs successfully on a small number of vehicles still needs appropriate installation, commissioning, maintenance, driver understanding and support when deployed more widely.
Larger-scale rollout can also introduce challenges that do not appear during a small trial, particularly around scheduling, installation capacity and consistency across multiple vehicles or locations.
Performance should therefore continue to be monitored after rollout rather than treating the trial as the end of the evaluation process.
Final Thoughts
Trialling vehicle safety technology before a full rollout can give fleets valuable evidence about how a proposed system performs in their own operation.
A useful trial should have clear objectives, representative vehicles and drivers, an appropriate duration and defined measures of success.
It should assess not only whether the technology performs its intended function, but also how it is installed, used, maintained and supported.
A successful trial cannot remove every risk from a wider rollout, but it can identify problems while they are still relatively easy to address and give fleet operators a stronger basis for deciding whether, and how, to proceed.
