According to the Korea Road Traffic Authority, from 2021 to 2023, there were 5,688 traffic accidents caused by drowsy driving—an average of about five per day. These accidents claimed the lives of 152 people.
These numbers alone may not give you a clear sense of the situation. What matters is how deadly these accidents are. The fatality rate for drowsy driving accidents is 2.7 deaths per 100 accidents— roughly doublethe average for all traffic accidents (1.4). This is because when a driver falls asleep, they fail to recognize the danger and collide without braking at all. In fact, over the past three years, drowsy driving accounted for 71.5% offatal highway accidents, making it by far the leading cause.
Not only drowsiness but also failure to watch the road ahead and cell phone use—a significant number of accidents stem from the driver’s conditionin this way.
However, most vehicle safety systems monitor the outside of the vehicle. Both lane departure warnings and forward collision warnings detect the road and the vehicle ahead. Yet, the driver—who is actually the source of the accident—is often not monitored by any system.
A system that monitors the driver is the DMS.
This article summarizes what a Driver Monitoring System (DMS) is, the current status of domestic and international regulations, and what transportation companies should consider when evaluating its implementation.
DMSstands forDriver Monitoring System.As the name suggests, it is a system in which an AI camera is directed at the driver—rather than the road—to monitor the driver’s condition in real time.
The key point is that it does not simply “record” or “detect”; rather, it monitors risky behavior in real time and alerts the driver immediately. While a standard dashcam stores footage for manual review after an accident, DMS operates differently. The AI camera constantly monitors the driver’s face, eyes, gaze, posture, and hand movements while driving to detect whether their eyes are closed, their gaze has strayed from the road, or they are holding a cell phone. As soon as risky behavior is detected, it sends a warning to the driver so they can correct it immediately.
In other words, DMS is a system where “detection → notification → correction” occurs in real time. The key is not merely detecting danger, but intervening at that very moment to prevent it from leading to an accident.
When a risk is detected,a voice warningis immediately delivered to the driver to prompt corrective action, and the event is simultaneously recorded as data. The principles by which the camera detects eye closure and gaze direction were covered step-by-stepin “ : What and How Does Driver Monitoring AI See?”; therefore, this article focuses on the aspects necessary for transportation companies to make an informed decision regarding adoption.
Ultimately, the performance of a DMS depends on “how accurately and quickly it detects dangerous conditions.” There are differences in the methods used to achieve this.
One method involves sending captured video to a server for analysis. The other involves the AI making judgments directly inside the vehicle. The latter does not require sending video anywhere or waiting for results; instead, the AI camera assesses risks on the spot and issues an immediate warning without delay. Since drowsiness is a matter of split seconds, this immediacy is crucial for preventing actual accidents.
Furthermore, the in-vehicle processing method allows for the selective recording and transmission of only hazardous situations—rather than sending all footage externally—thereby reducing unnecessary exposure of video data and offering advantages in terms of driver privacy. This is why it is essential to verify “where the assessment takes place” when evaluating a DMS.
ADAS is often confused with DMS. The twohave opposite viewing directions: and . ADAS uses a camera facingoutwardto detectlane markings, vehicles ahead, and pedestrians, while DMS facesthe driverto detect driver conditions such as drowsiness or failure to look ahead. Dashcams differ not in direction but in perspective—they are devices that review footage after an accident has occurred , not devices that intervene the moment a driver begins to doze off . These three devices are not interchangeable. The difference in detection ranges between ADAS and DMS was discussed in detailin “What’s the Difference Between ADAS and AI Safe Driving Solutions?” .
If you view DMS merely as “new equipment,” you’re missing the bigger picture. Transportation companies alreadyhavea legal obligation to manage driver fatigue, and DMS is virtually the only means of demonstrating that this obligation has been fulfilled.
Rest periods for bus drivers were made mandatory by an amendment to the Enforcement Rules of the Passenger Transportation Business Act, which took effect on February 28, 2017.
| Category | Rest Requirements |
|---|---|
| City, Rural, and Village Buses | A rest period of at least 10 minutes after completing one route. For routes with operating times exceeding 2 hours, at least 15 minutes; for routes exceeding 4 hours, at least 30 minutes |
| Intercity, Express, and Charter Buses | Take a break of at least 15 minutes at a rest area or similar location after driving continuously for 2 hours. Take a break of at least 15 minutes after completing a trip or arriving at the destination (may be extended up to 1 hour in case of unavoidable delays). Rest for at least 8 hours between the end of the last trip and the start of the next one |
| Violations | Transportation operators face business suspension or administrative fines; drivers face administrative penalties |
Although the regulations are clear, two questions remain in the field: “Why do drowsy driving accidents still occur even when rest periods are provided?” and “How can we prove after an accident that rest periods were guaranteed?”
DMS answers these two questions with data. If data shows where drowsiness events are concentrated—such as on which route and at what time ( ) or in which time periods ( )—operators can identify routes where drowsiness recurs during specific time frames (immediately after the first early-morning run, between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m., or during the return leg of long-distance trips) even when rest periods were provided as required, and adjust scheduling and rest allocation accordingly. Furthermore, in the event of an accident, the driver’s drowsiness warning history for that day and the company’s record of corrective actions serve as evidence answering the question, “Did the company identify the risk and take appropriate measures?” The extent to which this question holds the employer liable is summarizedin the article “ : How Severe Are the Penalties for Drowsy Driving?”
The reason we need to understand DMS now is because of the trend toward regulation.
Through the General Safety Regulation (GSR), the European Unionhas mandated the Driver Drowsiness and Attention Warning (DDAW) system for new vehicles starting in July 2024and is expanding this to includethe Attention Distraction Warning (ADDW) , which alerts the driver when their gaze remains off the road for a certain period of time.
There is another trend developing independently of these regulations. Euro NCAP, which assigns safety ratings to new vehicles, has designateddriver monitoring technology—which maintains the driver’s attention and engagement ( )—as a core criterion in its 2026 evaluation standards. It specifies that to receive the highest rating, the systemmust continuously track eye and head movements ( ), and the results must be linked to the sensitivity of the driver assistance system. Additional points are awarded for technologies that identify signs of impaired driving—such as alcohol or drug use—or bring the vehicle to a safe stop when the driver fails to respond. This means that legislation is not the only reason automakers are making DMS standard equipment.
in South Korea, the installation of DMS in commercial vehicles is not yet mandatory. This differs from the situation with lane departure warning systems (part of the ADAS suite), which are already legally required. However, international standards and the timelines of major countries are already pointing in the same direction (refer to the tableofregulatorystandards andmandatory implementation schedules by countryat ).
From the perspective of transportation companies, this actuallypresents an opportunity . Companies that adopt the system before it becomes mandatory will have established a track record of reduced accidents and a safety management system in place before regulations take effect. Unlike companies that install the system all at once after it becomes mandatory, they will have already identified operating methods tailored to their specific routes.
This is where the practical work begins. Not all DMS systems are created equal. A single line in a catalog stating “drowsiness detection support” is not enough to distinguish between products. To ensure the system actually works in real-world transportation operations, you must reframe the following five points—which arequestions to ask the supplier ( ) andmethods to verify on your own vehicles ( )—into actionable criteria.
Transportation vehicles often operate early in the morning and at night, and drivers wear glasses or sunglasses—and masks in the winter. Backlighting at tunnel exits, sunset while driving westward, and nighttime tour buses with interior lights on—if detection that worked well during a bright daytime demonstration fails under these conditions, the DMS is as good as nonexistent.
Drowsiness isn’t the only cause of accidents. Products that focus solely on drowsiness leave other risks—such as not watching the road ahead, cell phone use, and seatbelt non-compliance—in blind spots. Conversely, even if a product monitors many factors, it becomes problematic if the detection criteria are too broad. If warnings sound even for necessary visual shifts during driving—such as checking the side mirrors or attending to passengers— —drivers will either turn off the device or ignore it, and from that moment on, even genuine drowsiness warnings lose their effectiveness. These false alarms are the most common reason DMS systems fail in real-world conditions.
Drowsiness intervention is a race against the clock, measured in seconds. A system that sends video to a server for analysis results in warnings that are delayed by the communication lag; it does not function in areas with interrupted communication, such as tunnels or mountainous regions; driver video is constantly transmitted externally; and communication costs increase proportionally to the number of vehicles. Whether the system makes decisions directly on the in-vehicle device and only transmits event results makesasignificantdifference in terms of responsiveness, communication costs, and privacy concerns.
A device that merely sounds an alarm and stops there leaves nothing behind for the company. We don’t know when or how many times the alarm sounded, and the same hazard repeats itself the following week. For detection to lead to accident reduction, the moments of detection must be accumulatedas safe driving scores for each driver at , and those scores must be reported back to the driver.
For the score to be meaningful in the field, certain conditions must be met. It would be unfair to compare a long-haul driver who drives 400 km a day with a village bus driver who drives 80 km based on the same number of incidents; instead, the frequency per distancemust be considered, and since the risks of drowsiness and sudden acceleration differ ,the weightingsmust vary; andthe trends —showing how this month’s score has changed from last month and what factors caused the deduction—must be visible. When these three elements are in place, a vague reminder like “Please drive safely” transforms into specific feedback such as “Your instances of failing to look ahead have decreased this month compared to last month.” If a warning is about “correction in the moment,” then the score is about “preventing recurrence,” and this is where the driver’s habitschange.
Rather than focusing on the detection items listed in a catalog, we must examine how much risky behavior has actually decreased in real-world operating environments. The criteria for evaluation are whether there are pilot projects conducted by credible institutions or actual data from system implementation.
Furthermore, the conditions for successful adoption are just as important as the technology itself. A question that inevitably arises during the early stages of implementation is, “Won’t drivers resist, feeling they are being monitored?” The answer to this question lies not in the product itself, but in how it is operated. Do you explain to drivers in advance what data is being collected and how it will be used? Are scores used to recognize improvement rather than as penalty points? Do you demonstrate through real-world examples that this data serves as evidence of a driver’s diligence in the event of accidents or customer complaints? The key differentiator is whether the supplier merely delivers the equipment or also provides driver briefing materials, draft operating guidelines, and operational reviews for the first few months.
We do not recommend installing the system on all vehicles at once. Expanding the system without first establishing false alarm criteria and operational principles will lead to both driver resistance and disregard for the devices. Companies that achieved rapid adoption generally followed the sequence below.
DMS is the starting point for accident prevention, not a complete solution in and of itself. What transportation companies want is not merely to “monitor drivers,” but to “reduce accidents and manage the process.” To achieve this, DMS must work in tandem with driving environment recognition (ADAS), real-time alerts, a control platform, and integrated scoring and training systems.
A.I.Matics, a Vision AI specialist with over 20 years of experience, offersthe “ ” AI Safe Driving Solution. This solutionsimultaneously processes DMS and ADAS data within a single AI device installed in the vehicle and transmits the detected data to the aid monitoring platform, enabling driver-specific scoring and management.
A pilot project confirmed the actual changes that occurred once the system began monitoring drivers.
Measurement Conditions: Korea Transportation Safety Authority (KTSA) Route Bus Pilot Project · June–December 2024 · 13 transportation companies · 500 vehicles · 1,615 drivers · Based on 1,000 km of driving distance
| Risky Driving Behaviors | Before Implementation | After Implementation | Reduction Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drowsy Driving | 1.54 times | 0.005 incidents | 99.7% reduction |
| Failure to keep eyes on the road | 0.024 incidents | 0.002 times | 93.4% decrease |
| Running a Red Light | 12.75 times | 1.58 times | 87.6% decrease |
| Smoking | 0.54 times | 0.32 times | 41.4% decrease |
In particular , a 99.7% reduction in drowsy driving and a 93.4% reduction in failure to monitor the road ahead—the primary detection categories for DMS—were confirmed. These results were achieved by monitoring drivers in real time and issuing warnings the moment a risk was detected.
To sum it up in one sentence:
Most accidents are caused by the driver, yet most safety systems monitor the outside of the vehicle. DMS is a system that monitors the driver. It is already mandatory overseas, and South Korea is following suit. However, simply installing a DMS camera is not the same as reducing accidents and managing risks—detection, warning, and control must all work together.
Monitoring the driver is no longer a special feature but is becoming the foundation of safety management. Now, while it is not yet mandatory in Korea, is the opportunity to proactively establish a system.
👉Get a diagnostic assessment of your company’s driver detection and management system
A. They focus on opposite directions. ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) uses AI cameras to monitor the driving environment outside the vehicle—such as lane markings, the vehicle ahead, and pedestrians. DMS (Driver Monitoring System) uses an AI camera pointed at the driver to detect the driver’s condition—such as drowsiness, failure to look ahead, cell phone use, smoking, or failure to wear a seatbelt. To comprehensively prevent accidents, both systems must work together.
A. The installation of DMS is not yet mandatory for commercial vehicles in South Korea . While ADAS systems, such as lane departure warning systems, are already required by law, DMS is an exception. However, the European Union has mandated Driver Drowsiness and Attention Warning (DDAW) systems in new vehicles starting in July 2024, and the global trend is moving in the same direction. As the adoption of DMS is expected to expand in Korea as well, it may be advantageous to install it proactively before it becomes mandatory.
A. A standard dashcam only recordsvideo; it does not detect or warn the driver in real time if they are drowsy or not paying attention to the road ahead . It is intended for reviewing footage after an accident has occurred. DMS serves a different purpose in that it recognizes hazardous situations in real time and issues a warning before an accident occurs. The two are not substitutes for one another.
A. Drowsiness is a prime example of a hazardous condition, but it is not the only one. Distracted driving, cell phone use, and not wearing a seatbelt are also risk factors that can lead to accidents. If detection is limited to drowsiness alone, the remaining risks remain unaddressed. It is important to verify the range of detection capabilities when implementing the system.
A. That’s a reaction that might arise during the initial implementation phase. The key is to operate the system as a coaching tool rather than a punishment mechanism. Acceptance increases when risks are communicated in advance and the system is designed to include score-based feedback along with a recognition and reward system for improvement. Additionally, DMS data works to the advantage of conscientious drivers, as it allows them to objectively prove their safe driving practices in the event of an accident or a complaint.
A. Installing cameras and reducing accidents are two different things. Actual accident reduction occurs when detected hazards are immediately flagged to the driver as warnings, and that data is accumulated in the monitoring platform to inform driver-specific management and training. When evaluating a DMS, it’s essential to examine not only its detection performance but also this integrated management framework.
The drowsy driving statistics in this article are based on data from the Korea Road Traffic Authority; the data on accident reduction effects is based on the results of the Korea Transportation Safety Authority’s route bus pilot project; and the information on overseas regulatory trends is based on publicly available materials related to the European Union’s General Safety Regulation (GSR). Domestic and international regulatory requirements may vary depending on the timing and vehicle type, so individual verification is necessary.