My present company doesn't use EROAD so this is nearly 5 years ago:

We had problems with the accuracy of the posted speed limits - often EROAD would red-flag a vehicle at the same place repeatedly, but a site visit would show discrepency either with the actual posted speed, or when that speed zone started.

We also had issues with the metric regarding unproductive idling on the side of the road - in our industry it means the HIABs and EWPs are operating!

We had a similar issue where the signs on the road did not match up to the eroad by about 100 metres, so stopped using it for anything but monitoring

Good to know it wasn't just us, hope they have fixed it by now.

It took some doing but they got there, But I do find that companies use Eroad as a big stick to closely monitor vehicles, the drivers were so worried that they spent most of the time looking at the eroad to monitor their speed thus distracting them.

Yes, but remember the expression'what can be measured, can be managed'

Having had company vehicles involved in crashes (our fleet of 60 vehicles does 1 million km per year) where the Police asked if we had GPS tracking, and then requested the data as part of thier crash investigation does tend to focus one's attention on driving pattern of behavior.

We identified the 'at risk' drivers and first had a non-judgemental conversation about safety expectations (which worked for the majority), if behavior did not improve then it was passed onto HR for our performance management process (less than a handful of individuals).

Yes, but remember the expression'what can be measured, can be managed' — Stephen Small

Isn't the full quote from Drucker "What gets measured gets managed — even when it's pointless to measure and manage it, and even if it harms the purpose of the organization to do so"

Which couldn't your story be an example of a reason to not collect this data as if you don't have it, it cannot be used as evidence against you... if you were only considering statutory risks...

Thanks Matt, i am aware of the full quote.
It was used in the context of the Police expectation to use the data as evidence (a current or previous pattern of speeding by the individual before the single vehicle accident - and then build a case that we had given tacit approval for workers to speed by being aware that they were breaking the law but not taking action.
(If you have a GPS is it 'resonablably practicable' to monitor speeding infringements).

Which couldn't your story be an example of a reason to not collect this data as if you don't have it, it cannot used as evidence against you... if you were only considering statutory risks. — MattD2

And if it isn't 100% accurate, that also would be a reason to think about harvesting it, though it is very useful to know a vehicle is where it's supposed to be, and when it's supposed to be there.

It could be argued that they are a third party and not entitled to see the information without the consent of the worker, especially if a conviction is going to take place. I do believe in the GPS equipment as a management tool but more and more it is being used to discipline people..

We've been using eRoad for a few years now - initially just in heavy vehicles but now across the whole fleet. We do use it to recognise and reward the 5 star drivers, as well as having some coaching conversations (which may progress if they don't respond) with the 1 and 2 star drivers.
Over the years, we've seen a general improvement in driver behaviours (i.e. increase in star-rating), and consequently less damage/ wear and tear and even fuel costs. So overall, a very positive experience.
They're not 100% accurate - but if you're a 1 or 2 star driver, that's not because of the inaccuracy of the unit!

Great point Chris - it's always obvious when serial speeders go straight to focus intently on one or two anomolies in their GPS overspeed data and ignore the multitide of contributions towards their 1 or 2 star driver rating - Distractions!!