← Back to Blog
Trucking News

Trucking News: October 1, 2026 — What Carriers Need to Know

Trucking News: October 1, 2026 — What Carriers Need to Know

Cargo Theft Convictions Highlight a Growing Carrier-Identity Risk

A Los Angeles jury convicted two people tied to a nationwide cargo theft operation that allegedly used purchased trucking companies to gain credibility, obtain freight, and divert loads. The reported losses were approximately $2 million. The case is another reminder that cargo thieves are not always impersonating carriers from the outside; sometimes they acquire or operate legitimate-looking transportation businesses.

For small carriers, the lesson is to protect both your freight and your company identity. Brokers and shippers are tightening verification, while criminals are becoming more sophisticated with operating histories, insurance documents, email domains, and tracking information. Carriers should keep access to rate confirmations, customer portals, and shipment data limited to people who need it. A basic TMS audit can also reveal unusual logins, changed payment instructions, or suspicious activity around high-value loads.

The most important takeaway: a carrier’s identity and digital credentials are now part of its cargo-security system.

Freight Market Sends Mixed Signals

The latest market outlook is neither a clear recovery nor a total collapse. Trucking continues to navigate uneven demand, shifting capacity, changing operating costs, and inconsistent lane conditions. Some segments and regions are seeing better opportunities, while other fleets are still competing aggressively for ordinary dry-van, reefer, and flatbed freight.

Small carriers should avoid building a budget around a broad market rebound. Watch the lanes you actually run, not just national headlines. Track loaded-mile revenue, deadhead, detention, fuel cost, and repair spending by customer and lane. When rates are unstable, a reliable shipper with predictable appointment practices may be more valuable than a higher-paying load that creates long delays. VAU0’s logistics technology tools can help carriers organize this lane-level information instead of relying on memory or scattered spreadsheets.

Trucking Company Ends Nearly 80 Years of Mail Delivery

A trucking company is ending nearly eight decades of delivering mail, closing a long-running relationship with the postal system. The change illustrates how contract transitions can affect carriers even when a lane or service has appeared permanent for generations.

For small fleets, government and postal work can provide steady utilization, but it can also come with contract-specific equipment, compliance, service, and renewal requirements. If a major customer changes vendors, the replacement work may not match your existing routes or equipment. Carriers tied heavily to one contract should review their customer concentration and identify alternative freight before a transition becomes urgent. Keep driver and equipment records current through a centralized compliance process so you are ready when a new bid or subcontracting opportunity opens.

Truckers Support Stronger English-Proficiency Enforcement

Truckers are backing a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration proposal intended to give enforcement more effect when a commercial driver cannot meet English-language proficiency requirements. The issue is closely tied to roadside communication, understanding traffic signs and inspection instructions, and responding safely during emergencies.

For carriers, the practical concern is consistency. Hiring pressure should not replace a meaningful evaluation of whether a driver can understand safety-related communication. Owners should document their qualification and onboarding process, provide clear instructions, and make sure dispatchers do not create communication gaps between drivers, shippers, receivers, and enforcement personnel. A written policy, periodic review, and properly maintained driver files are especially important for small fleets that may not have a dedicated safety department.

Marijuana Rescheduling Does Not Remove Transportation Testing Duties

Discussion around marijuana rescheduling is creating confusion for employers across the transportation industry. A change in federal drug classification would not automatically make marijuana use acceptable for safety-sensitive commercial driving or eliminate employer testing responsibilities. The rules affecting transportation workers are separate from broader changes in medical or recreational marijuana policy.

Carriers should avoid informal interpretations and continue following the applicable federal requirements for testing, reporting, and return-to-duty procedures. State legality does not necessarily protect a driver from workplace consequences in a safety-sensitive position. Review your drug-and-alcohol policy, make sure supervisors know how to respond to a concern, and coordinate with qualified compliance professionals before changing any company practice. The VAU0 compliance resources can help organize policy reviews and recurring documentation, but carriers should confirm regulatory questions with their designated experts.

What carriers should do this week

  • Audit email, TMS, broker-portal, and payment-access permissions, especially for employees or vendors who recently left the company.
  • Review the last 60 to 90 days of freight by lane, customer, loaded-mile revenue, deadhead, detention, and fuel cost.
  • Check whether driver qualification files and English-proficiency evaluation records are complete and consistently documented.
  • Review your drug-and-alcohol policy for marijuana-related changes, but do not relax transportation testing practices based solely on state law or rescheduling news.
  • Identify any customer or government contract that represents an outsized share of revenue and create a backup freight plan.
← Back to Blog For Carriers →
Why We Built ESSE Instead of Buying Another TMS | ESSE Blog
Our Story

Why we built ESSE instead of buying another TMS

In 2022, we were running a small fleet and spending approximately $400 per truck per month on software. TMS license, ELD subscription, e-sign service, separate accounting integration. Four different logins. Four different monthly invoices. Four different support teams to call when something didn't work.

None of it talked to each other without manual data entry.

The software evaluation that changed everything

We spent three months evaluating every major TMS and fleet management system on the market. AscendTMS, McLeod, Motive, EZLogz, KeepTruckin, TruckingOffice, Axon. We signed up for demos, trials, and in two cases, paid for actual subscriptions to test them properly.

What we found was consistent across almost all of them: the software was built by people who had never dispatched a truck. You could tell immediately. The terminology was slightly wrong. The workflows assumed steps that no real dispatcher would take. The ELD and TMS were always separate systems that "integrated" — meaning they sometimes shared data, if you configured things correctly, and the configuration broke whenever either vendor pushed an update.

"The best way to evaluate trucking software is to use it under real pressure. Not in a demo. Not in a test environment. On a real load, with a real deadline, when a broker is calling every 30 minutes for an update."

The specific things that were broken

Without naming specific vendors: one major TMS required five screen transitions to update a load status. Not five clicks — five full page navigations. On a mobile browser from a truck stop, that meant 45 seconds to tell a broker the truck was loaded. Another system had beautiful analytics dashboards but couldn't tell you, in real time, how many hours of drive time your driver had remaining without navigating to a separate compliance module.

The ELD market was worse. Most ELD systems were designed to satisfy FMCSA's technical requirements — which they did — while making the user experience as painful as possible. Drivers hated them. When drivers hate their tools, they find workarounds. Workarounds create compliance risk.

The moment we decided to build

The decision was made on a Tuesday afternoon when our dispatcher spent 40 minutes re-entering data from a rate confirmation PDF that our ELD had already captured in a different system. The information existed. It was digital. It lived in three different places that didn't talk to each other, and a human was manually transferring it between systems.

That's not a technology problem. That's a lack of ambition problem. Nobody had decided to solve it because the existing systems were profitable enough without solving it.

What we decided to build instead

One platform. ELD and TMS as the same system, not integrations. AI that reads rate confirmation PDFs so dispatchers don't have to. A dispatcher — eventually an AI dispatcher — that covers nights and weekends so loads don't get missed. E-sign built in, not bolted on.

And priced at zero through 2026, because the goal was to prove the product worked before asking carriers to pay for it.

Two years in: did it work?

The Rate Con AI has a 95%+ accuracy rate on standard broker formats. ERETH ELD passed FMCSA's technical certification. Our AI dispatchers book real loads for real carriers after hours. The carrier dashboard still occasionally has a minor bug — we fix them the same day they're reported.

Would we have been better off just using an existing system and focusing on freight? Financially, in the short term, probably yes. But we would have kept paying $400 per truck per month for software that we knew was mediocre. And we would have missed the opportunity to build something that actually works the way the industry needs it to work.

We don't regret it.

← Back to Blog Next: Our first AI broker call →