← Back to Blog
Trucking News

Trucking News: October 18, 2026 — What Carriers Need to Know

Trucking News: October 18, 2026 — What Carriers Need to Know

ATA Names 14th LEAD ATA Class

The American Trucking Associations has announced the 14th class of LEAD ATA, its leadership development program for trucking professionals. The program is designed to prepare rising executives and industry leaders for larger responsibilities across carrier operations, safety, policy, technology, and workforce development.

For small carriers, the takeaway is that leadership development is becoming an operational issue, not just a corporate benefit. An owner-operator who plans to add trucks, or a small fleet preparing to hand more responsibility to dispatchers and supervisors, needs people who can make sound decisions under pressure. Formal programs are not the only option. Regular reviews of safety performance, customer service, maintenance costs, and driver retention can build the same leadership habits on a smaller budget.

The strongest small-carrier advantage is often not fleet size—it is having capable people who can make consistent decisions when the owner is not available.

Alabama Trucking Leader Mark Colson Tapped for National Role

Alabama trucking leader Mark Colson has been selected to lead a national trucking association, bringing a state-level carrier perspective into a broader industry role. Leadership changes like this matter because many of the issues facing fleets—insurance costs, driver qualification, enforcement, infrastructure, and freight volatility—are shaped by national policy but felt locally.

Small carriers should pay attention to the priorities that come out of this transition. National association leadership can influence how regulators and lawmakers view compliance burdens, workforce rules, and operating costs. It also gives carriers another reason to participate in state associations and industry discussions. A local carrier that shares real operating data and practical examples is more likely to have its concerns represented than one that remains silent until a rule takes effect.

ATRI Opens Surveys on Truck Driver Health

The American Transportation Research Institute has launched trucking industry surveys examining the effects of truck driver health. The effort is expected to gather information on health conditions, work patterns, access to care, and the ways health affects safety, productivity, and driver retention.

Health is frequently treated as a private matter, but for a carrier it also connects to preventable downtime, medical qualification concerns, fatigue risk, and turnover. Smaller fleets should approach any survey participation with accurate, non-identifying information and should avoid making assumptions about individual drivers. The broader value will be better data for policies that recognize the realities of irregular schedules, limited parking, long periods seated, and difficulty accessing medical services on the road.

Carriers can also use this moment to review their own practices. Clear fatigue reporting, practical scheduling, access to benefits information, and respect for medical privacy can improve trust without turning the company into a healthcare provider. A simple driver check-in process may reveal problems before they become missed appointments, unsafe operations, or resignations.

CVSA Publishes Regulatory Update

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance has issued its latest regulatory update, covering recent developments relevant to commercial motor carriers and enforcement personnel. These updates are useful because regulatory changes often move through several stages—proposal, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement—before they show up in a roadside inspection or audit.

Owners should not rely on headlines or social media summaries when a rule affects their operation. Review the actual update, identify whether it applies to your equipment and lanes, and document any policy changes. A small carrier does not need a large compliance department, but it does need a repeatable process for tracking requirements, assigning responsibility, and confirming that drivers received the information.

This is a good week to review the compliance resources in your operation, including driver qualification files, inspection records, maintenance documentation, and internal policies. VAU0’s compliance resources can help carriers organize that work, but the final responsibility remains with the carrier and its designated safety personnel.

Trucking Group Pushes for Stronger English-Proficiency Rules

A trucking group is urging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to adopt stronger English-proficiency rules for commercial motor vehicle drivers. The issue centers on whether drivers can understand highway signs, communicate during inspections and traffic stops, and respond to safety-related questions or instructions.

For carriers, this is a sensitive issue that requires a safety-first approach rather than a blanket assumption about any driver or language background. If federal guidance changes, fleets will need a consistent and documented evaluation process. That process should focus on job-related communication and comprehension, apply equally to every driver, and avoid informal tests that create inconsistent results or discrimination risk.

Until there is a final requirement, carriers can review onboarding and safety procedures. Make sure drivers understand emergency instructions, inspection communications, dispatch messages, load documentation, and key warning signs. Use qualified language assistance where appropriate during training, while confirming that the driver can independently perform the communication tasks required for safe operation. Updates should be tracked through the company’s compliance program rather than handled differently by individual dispatchers.

What carriers should do this week

  • Review the latest CVSA regulatory update and assign one person to track any changes that affect your operation.
  • Ask drivers for practical feedback on fatigue, health access, scheduling, and roadside communication without collecting unnecessary medical details.
  • Audit onboarding materials to confirm that every driver understands emergency procedures, inspection communications, safety policies, and required documentation.
  • Identify one dispatcher, safety employee, or driver who could take on more responsibility and create a simple development plan.
  • Use a centralized system such as a transportation management system to keep compliance tasks, driver communications, and operational records organized.
← 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 →