This article is part of our topic on businesses and logistics sites.
Car park or dealership security must distinguish authorised uses by area and time. A customer near vehicles during opening hours, an expected delivery driver and someone on a closed site need different handling. Detection should be connected to that context before any intervention is considered.
The project combines access, lighting, observation methods and the people handling alerts. Another camera or a robot adds value only when its task is defined and compatible with vehicle and pedestrian movements.
Divide the site according to actual use
Distinguish reception, display vehicles, customer parking, delivery areas, workshop entrances and areas closed to the public. Record hours and exceptions, including vehicle drop-offs or deliveries after closing. A boundary on a plan should correspond to a clear rule on site.
Valais cantonal police advice for businesses highlights access and property protection. For a car park, complement this with an area-and-time matrix rather than a blanket rule treating every presence as suspicious.
| Area | During normal use | Outside normal use |
|---|---|---|
| Reception and customer parking | Expected visitors, guidance and traffic safety. | Verification based on hours and remaining authorised access. |
| Display vehicles | Visits and movements managed by the business. | Event assessed against the area and closing arrangements. |
| Deliveries / after-hours drop-off | Dedicated procedure and contact. | Do not confuse an announced delivery with an intrusion. |
| Workshop and restricted areas | Access according to authorised roles. | Closing checks and exception handling. |
Connect access to business procedures
Define who changes schedules, authorises a late visit or grants supplier access. That information must reach alert handlers. Changed commercial hours without updated instructions can cause unnecessary checks or prolonged disabling of protection.
The closing procedure should identify areas still accessible and unavailable equipment. Include physical protection and appropriate site checks without obstructing routes or emergency access. A guard receiving an alert needs this context, not just an isolated image.
Where there is a key drop-off or another specific service, examine its protection with the relevant people. Monitoring does not replace the business’s own safekeeping, traceability and access rules.
Fixed cameras, human or robotic patrols: assign a task
A fixed camera provides a defined viewpoint. A patrol can check several points in sequence. A robot can carry sensors along a suitable route, but its presence at the right place and ability to provide useful information must be validated. It is not a human presence able to handle every situation.
For robotic business patrols, define observable tasks: check an apparent condition, provide another angle or report a specified anomaly. Avoid a vague assignment to “protect every vehicle”. Movements, obstacles, full parking areas and layout changes belong in the pilot.
Where employees, customers or delivery drivers circulate, movement safety and recovery procedures need a specific assessment. The robot, guard and remote-monitoring comparison helps allocate functions without assuming technology replaces intervention.
Limit surveillance to the chosen purpose
A private car park does not allow unrestricted filming of the street. The FDPIC explains private surveillance of public space and its limited exceptions. Define framing, exclusions and information for people, rather than assuming a sign authorises every recording.
Where employees are affected, also consider SECO’s workplace surveillance commentary. Security images must not become a tool for monitoring their behaviour. Document schedules, access rights and permitted uses.
Automatic number-plate recognition or additional analytics should address a distinct need and be assessed before activation. Do not add a feature simply because the software offers it. Our article on video surveillance and personal data explores this further.
The area, schedule and response matrix
This original worksheet prepares settings and instructions. It should describe expected operation without publicly exposing sensitive details. An exception remains limited and assigned to a responsible person; it should not become a forgotten permanent disabling of protection.
Download the use and alert matrix (CSV)Then test a normal visit, an announced delivery and an agreed verification event on a closed site. Producing an alert is not enough: the operator should understand the context and apply the correct instruction.
A night-time test should include moving situations when they are part of the task. Our thermal versus infrared night-vision comparison explains why an attractive static image does not validate useful information.
Fictional example: a delivery after closing
A dealership schedules an evening delivery. The system detects someone in an area normally closed, but the operator does not have the revised schedule. The event causes unnecessary calls, and the team considers disabling the rule to avoid the problem.
The first correction is to communicate the exception with a defined period and responsible person, then verify restoration of normal operation. Do not silence an entire area to compensate for missing information. This constructed example illustrates a coordination problem, not necessarily a detection failure.
For a complete project, connect the matrix to our industrial and logistics site guide and quote comparison criteria. Have configuration, tests and maintenance priced as explicitly as the equipment.
Frequently asked questions
Does someone in a closed car park prove an intrusion?
No. A delivery, contractor or authorised exception may explain the presence. Assess detection alongside available information and instructions.
Can a robot patrol between moving vehicles?
Movement feasibility and safety must be assessed for the site and chosen platform. A demonstration in an empty car park does not establish this.
Can you film the street to see the entrance better?
Private surveillance of public space is restricted; neighbouring private ownership does not make it unrestricted. Framing and any exceptions need assessment.
When should settings be updated?
When hours, traffic, storage areas or visiting arrangements change. The matrix should remain consistent with actual operations.
Sources and method
The matrix and delivery example are original editorial tools. The example is fictional. Proposed measures must be adapted to the site’s uses and constraints. Sources consulted on 23 October 2026.
- Valais cantonal police — Business burglary preventionProtecting entrances, property and business continuity.
- FDPIC — Private video surveillance of public spaceLimits when private surveillance reaches public space.
- SECO — Commentary on Article 26, Employment Act Ordinance 3Conditions and documentation for workplace monitoring systems.