Tracking tells you where the vehicle was. Video tells you what happened. That is the difference between assuming and knowing, and it is what your client needs on the day of the crash or the complaint.
With CamFleet the client opens the vehicle and sees what is happening at that moment.
When there is a crash or a complaint, the video of those minutes is downloaded.
A wall with several cameras at once for whoever is watching the fleet.
You can watch forward and inward, depending on what the client needs.
The footage is linked to the point on the map where it happened.
The file works as evidence for the insurer or the hiring company.
Exact words you can use on the visit. No jargon.
“GPS tells you where the truck was. The camera tells you whose fault it was.”
“The day they blame your driver, you show the video and the argument is over.”
“And you don't have to go to the vehicle to pull the card: the video downloads from the office.”
You resell under your own brand. This is who it works for, and with what argument.
Those who lost money because they couldn't prove what happened.
Where a passenger complaint is one word against another.
Where what happens to the cargo also has to be watched.
Where video is training material, not just punishment.
Yes, with devices built to stream video. It is worth distinguishing that from devices that only send photos when an event occurs.
There is a retention period after which it is deleted, because video takes a lot of space. Anything needed for a claim has to be downloaded within that period.
A great deal more than tracking. This is where whoever quotes video as if it were a tracker gets it wrong: the data plan has to be budgeted separately.
Yes. A camera records a person at work, so the company must inform them in writing before fitting it.
And the least argued about once the client has already had a problem.