Skip to main content

Enforceable distracted driving solution

Cellcontrol says it has adapted its technology to Class A (SAE J1939), an industry standard that will allow its Cellcontrol system to operate within a variety of fleet vehicles, including commercial vehicles, big rigs, school buses, heavy equipment and other Class A vehicles. Utilising the vehicle's onboard computer, Cellcontrol determines when the vehicle is moving at any speed and, based on a company's distracted driving policy, instantly blocks the use of a driver's cell phone, laptop computer or other m
February 6, 2012 Read time: 2 mins
2292 Cellcontrol says it has adapted its technology to Class A (SAE J1939), an industry standard that will allow its Cellcontrol system to operate within a variety of fleet vehicles, including commercial vehicles, big rigs, school buses, heavy equipment and other Class A vehicles. Utilising the vehicle's onboard computer, Cellcontrol determines when the vehicle is moving at any speed and, based on a company's distracted driving policy, instantly blocks the use of a driver's cell phone, laptop computer or other mobile device.

Mobile phone functions that Cellcontrol can prevent include phone, text, email, Web, push-to-talk and other distracting features. Calling 911 is always allowed as well as incoming texts, emails and calls, which are received but cannot be accessed or responded to while the vehicle is moving. In addition to those features, Cellcontrol will also report idle time, mileage and speed capturing for fleet managers who want to ensure their drivers are following correct company policies and procedures when it comes to the operation of their company vehicle.

Additionally, Cellcontrol enables users to white-list certain numbers to be allowed through the system. For example, a fleet manager can have only calls from his or her company go through to drivers' phones. Users also have the freedom to customise which mobile features they want to prevent. For example, a fleet manager in Austin, Texas, may choose to block only texts and emails (since that is currently Austin city law) but still allow phone calls. Additionally, the technology allows for one phone to be paired with many vehicles.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Bit by bit insurers agree data protocol
    November 7, 2013
    Telematics technology may be a game changer for the automobile insurance industry but it comes with some caveats as Colin Sowman discovers. James Bielak, (P&C) program manager at the US office of ACORD (the Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development), has an unenviable job: to devise a standard form of communicating vehicle data between telematics providers and insurance companies. To that end he has gathered together a group composed of insurers, telematics providers and other intere
  • eBrake launches pilot program in Canada to prevent distracted driving
    July 18, 2017
    Canadian company eBrake Technologies is preparing its North American launch of a smartphone app which locks drivers from their device when vehicle-related motion is detected and has just launched a pilot program with Canadian mobile network provider Telus. The app, eBrake, requires no in-vehicle hardware; it locks any device on which it is installed and blocks incoming notifications. To unlock the device, users must complete eBrake's patent pending Passenger Unlock Test, something a driver cannot complete w
  • Hayden AI & Snapper Services keep their eyes on the road
    August 29, 2024
    Snapper Services CEO Miki Szikszai and Chris Carson, CEO of Hayden AI, tell Adam Hill about synergy and partnership – and how to make use of data once you’ve gathered it
  • Monitoring and transparency preserve enforcement's reputation
    July 30, 2012
    What can be done to preserve automated enforcement's reputation in the face of media and public criticism? Here, system manufacturers and suppliers talk about what they think are the most appropriate business models. Recent events in Italy only served to once again to push automated enforcement into the media spotlight. At the heart of the matter were the numerous alleged instances of local authorities and their contract suppliers of enforcement services colluding to illegally shorten amber signal phase tim