Trucking is showing early signs of improvement, but the recovery is not giving carriers permission to relax. Freight conditions, driver pay, fuel policy, and federal enforcement are all moving at once. For small fleets and owner-operators, the main challenge is turning industry-level changes into decisions that protect cash flow and safety.

The trucking market may be turning a corner—but risk is still rising

Lockton’s latest market assessment points to a trucking industry beginning to move out of the prolonged freight downturn. Better load activity and a more balanced supply of trucks could eventually support stronger rates. That does not mean every lane or equipment type is recovering at the same speed. Contract freight, spot freight, and specialized sectors may continue to behave very differently.

The risks are just as important as the improvement. Insurance costs, claims severity, equipment expenses, labor costs, and uncertain fuel prices can absorb a rate increase quickly. Small carriers should be careful about adding trucks based only on a few stronger weeks. Before expanding, review customer concentration, deadhead, maintenance reserves, and the real cost per mile through a reliable transportation management system.

The market turning a corner is an opportunity—not a guarantee. Carriers that improve margins and operating discipline now will be in a stronger position if the recovery becomes uneven.

Trucking groups question whether the diesel order will lower prices

The trucking industry is skeptical that a federal order focused on diesel and energy production will produce immediate relief at the pump. Fuel prices are influenced by global crude markets, refinery capacity, seasonal demand, regional supply, taxes, and transportation costs. A policy announcement may affect long-term supply expectations, but it does not instantly change what a driver pays at a truck stop tomorrow.

That matters most for smaller carriers, which often have less purchasing power and fewer fuel-card options. Fuel surcharges can also lag behind retail prices, leaving carriers exposed when diesel rises quickly. Owners should compare surcharge formulas with actual fuel costs by lane and keep separate records for fuel, tolls, and accessorial expenses. VAU0’s TMS tools can help carriers organize trip costs and spot lanes where the surcharge is not covering the operation.

For now, fuel planning should remain conservative. Do not build a budget around a promised price decline. Use current regional averages, maintain a cash cushion, and make sure dispatchers are considering fuel burn and deadhead—not just the posted rate per loaded mile.

ATA reports planned pay increases for 2026

Dozens of trucking companies reportedly planned driver pay increases for 2026, according to the American Trucking Associations. The move reflects continued competition for experienced drivers, even while freight demand remains uneven. Higher pay can help with retention, but carriers are also weighing insurance, maintenance, equipment, and compliance costs.

For small fleets, matching every large-carrier pay increase may not be realistic. The better question is whether the entire compensation package is competitive and predictable. Clear detention policies, practical home-time commitments, consistent miles, reliable communication, and prompt accessorial pay can matter nearly as much as a headline cents-per-mile figure.

Owner-operators should also read rate and lease agreements carefully before accepting a higher advertised rate. A higher gross number does not necessarily mean higher take-home pay if fuel, repairs, escrow deductions, unpaid waiting time, or forced dispatch reduce the margin. Carriers reviewing compensation plans should model the cost per productive mile and document any changes before the new year.

Industry group asks FMCSA for stronger English proficiency rules

A trucking group is urging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to adopt stronger English proficiency requirements for commercial motor vehicle drivers. The issue is tied to communication during inspections, roadside emergencies, dispatch, and interactions with law enforcement. Supporters say a driver must be able to understand safety instructions and communicate clearly enough to operate responsibly.

For carriers, the practical issue is not simply whether a driver speaks perfect English. It is whether the driver can understand essential safety information, read required signs and documents, answer questions, and communicate during a traffic stop or emergency. Hiring and onboarding processes should test job-related communication skills consistently rather than relying on informal impressions.

Carriers should document training and keep safety procedures available in a way drivers can understand. That includes accident instructions, breakdown procedures, hours-of-service guidance, cargo securement requirements, and escalation contacts. A documented process through the company’s compliance program is easier to defend than an inconsistent screening practice.

FMCSA language enforcement raises questions about out-of-service decisions

A related debate is developing over how FMCSA language requirements should be enforced and when a driver could be placed out of service. The safety goal is straightforward: a driver who cannot understand or communicate critical information may create a risk. The concern for carriers is whether enforcement will be applied consistently, with clear criteria and a fair opportunity to demonstrate compliance.

Small carriers may feel the impact quickly because one driver being placed out of service can disrupt a delivery, create a service failure, and produce unexpected recovery costs. Fleets should not wait for an inspection problem to discover that a driver cannot explain hours-of-service records, identify cargo, understand a detour, or communicate after a crash.

Training should focus on real operating situations instead of memorized phrases. Run brief scenario-based checks during orientation and periodic safety meetings. Keep records of the training, but avoid treating language ability as a substitute for a complete qualification review. Carriers should also monitor FMCSA guidance as the debate develops before changing policies or making broad employment decisions.

What carriers should do this week

• Review every major lane for fuel exposure, deadhead, detention, tolls, and unpaid time—not just the linehaul rate.
• Delay expansion decisions until stronger freight activity is supported by several weeks of profitable results.
• Audit driver compensation and explain pay, accessorials, deductions, and home-time policies in writing.
• Conduct practical English communication and emergency-procedure checks for all drivers, with consistent documentation.
• Update compliance files, inspection procedures, and safety training using the latest guidance available through your compliance workflow.

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.