It says here “we don’t recommend community colleges and local training” I don’t agree with that. A good driver can come from anywhere it all comes down to if the individual commits themselves to learning.

We don't recommend community colleges or private training, but we didn't say we forbid them or that you can't succeed that way. There is a preferred way of doing things, which for almost everyone is paid training, and there are less preferred ways, which still work most of the time.

A lot of good information in here, but some stuff that’s just plain wrong.

Oh, this should be good. Go for it, friend. School us veterans with your two years of deep knowledge. What did we get wrong?

WOW, what a shocking revelation for the trucking industry. I'm floored by what the last administration did and the recruiting nightmare that's about to hit the trucking industry in the coming months. It could be a massive crisis.

Here is a summary of an article by Zerohedge titled, Biden Handed Out CDLs Like Candy... Now US Highways Are A Public & National Security Nightmare:

The U.S. trucking industry has faced a dramatic shift over the past decade, driven by policy changes that loosened driver standards and flooded the market with migrant truckers, culminating in rising safety risks and economic strain for American drivers.

• In 2016, a federal memorandum waived enforcement of English proficiency requirements for CDLs, loosening standards for truck drivers.
• In 2021, the Biden administration introduced the “Trucking Action Plan” to address a claimed driver shortage, initially targeting veterans, women, and minorities.
• By 2022, the Biden administration boasted adding 876,000 new drivers—doubling the usual annual rate—shifting the plan’s focus to issuing non-domicile CDLs to refugees and migrants.
• Between 2022 and 2025, the industry gained over 300,000 drivers despite over 100,000 small and mid-sized U.S. carriers going bankrupt in an ongoing downturn.
• Since 2016, truck-involved incidents and fatalities have steadily risen, a trend ATU correlates with the influx of minimally vetted migrant drivers.
• Weeks ago, a migrant driver with limited English, holding a non-domicile CDL, caused a deadly crash in Austin, Texas, killing 5 and injuring 11, spotlighting safety risks.
• ATU suspects NGOs like Texas-based Global Impact Initiative have aided migrants in obtaining CDLs, raising national security concerns (e.g., truck attacks like Nice, France).
• In 2025, with Trump back in office and English now the official U.S. language, calls emerge for a task force to reverse Biden’s policies, reinstate language rules, and empower states to enforce penalties for non-compliant drivers.

Things are about to change dramatically in this industry. The demand for drivers over the past two years has gone nearly to zero, something I haven't experience in almost 20 years of running this website, including the Great Recession of 2008. Now I know why no one needs drivers. Man, that is about to change.

That's amazing Eric! Way to go!

Getting your CDL is something you'll never forget. I passed my exam in 1993 and I can remember it like it was yesterday!

Do you think this is the future or just going to be used by companies virtue signaling?

It won't happen soon, but someday they'll have a major breakthrough in battery technology, and this stuff will become economically feasible. Right now, running an all-electric vehicle infrastructure with today's battery technology is incredibly expensive. The mining, manufacturing, and charging infrastructure requirements are vast. We're nowhere near ready for this on a major scale. Battery technology needs to improve by 100x.

What I think we're living through now, with attempts at fully autonomous driving and electric vehicles, is real-world learning using someone else's money (taxpayers). Our technological skills are developing and we're solving real-world problems, but are we heading down the best path?

If the government would get out of the way, drones have a much more exciting future than driving vehicles. If the US had to make a commitment to either electric vehicles or drones, I'd much rather pursue drones. When you do a deep-dive comparison of drones to ground vehicles, drones have a million advantages. When you need the practicality of a ground vehicle, which you will, then you'll have it. Most of the time the drone will be the better choice.

If it evolved organically, I think you would see a gradual transition away from ground vehicles to drones over time. Every family would have a ground vehicle, and many would have at least one drone.

Last year I hit my one Million Safe Miles milestone.

WOW! That's amazing!

Oh.. and I have lost 80 pounds too!

WOW! I hate to use up my 'amazing' quota for the week on a Sunday morning, but you're killin' it! That's amazing!

I'll tell ya one of the things I love about you and the other long-time members here - you guys haven't been jaded by life on the road. You guys stay positive, work hard, take tremendous pride in what you do, and never stop improving. All of you promote this career in an honest and encouraging way, and you are the true champions in this industry.

Great job again, Kearsey! I've said that a lot over the years, and it won't be the last time.

I'm building a new AI-driven news system that isn't done, but it's working pretty well already so I'll use it here. I asked about recent news regarding Sean Duffy, who was picked to lead the DOT, and his potential affect on the trucking industry. Here is what it said (hint: the prospects are good!):

From Brett: Duffy was confirmed, so we'll see what he does!

Thanks for bringing that up, PJ!

Here at TT, we've always been firmly against leasing, as you know well, and this story confirms what we've always said: the contracts are designed by the company for the benefit of the company at the expense of the driver.

Trucking has such tight profit margins that you can't afford to have middlemen. In these leasing programs, there's no way to know who is involved. Did the company finance the truck and then provide the financing to you? Where did that money come from? Who is sponsoring all of it, and what do they get out of it?

Who knows? Could be several layers of financing involved coming from different sources.

Then, it should make people wonder why a trucking company would want to buy a truck and lease it to you instead of just hiring you as a driver. When do you see corporations help individual employees become business owners? Not too often!

A few simple questions about the process should throw a ton of red flags:

• Who pays for fuel?
• Who pays for repairs?
• Do I still get health benefits?
• Are there any mileage guarantees? What if I'm not getting enough miles to make my payments?

Just those few questions alone should make anyone take a step back and wonder what they're getting into.

Stay away from leasing trucks. The economics are terrible.

There's a new article out from Zerohedge today:

Fight Over Truck Broker Contracts Awaits Trump's Next Move

This is a pretty unusual proposal because, in most industries, businesses negotiate terms privately, and each party tries to secure the best deal for themselves. The specifics of how much profit a middleman makes or the costs they incur are generally considered proprietary information.

Broker Transparency Rule: This rule departs from the norm by proposing that in the trucking industry, brokers must be more open about financial details related to freight transactions.

Owner-operators and small trucking companies believe it's unfair that they're in the dark about how much a broker is earning from a load compared to what they're being paid. They argue that knowing the full financial details would help them negotiate better rates, ensuring they get a fairer share of the revenue.

I asked AI to give us the rundown:

Broker Transparency Rule: What's Up?

The rule seeks to impose new standards on contracts to ensure that carriers have access to crucial rate information, like the total charges and payments associated with the loads they transport. The goal is to create a more level playing field by preventing brokers from hiding or misrepresenting the financial details of transactions, thereby reducing the potential for unsubstantiated charges and fostering trust and fairness in negotiations between carriers and brokers.

The Backstory:

Back in 2020, when truckers lined up their rigs on the National Mall to protest, President Trump took notice. He said on "Fox & Friends," "All they want is to be treated fairly, and we’re going to treat them fairly." But now, years later, we're looking at a rule that could change how we see broker deals.

What's Happening Now:

• The comment period for the FMCSA's Broker Transparency rule ends on Jan. 21, 2025, right after Trump's second inauguration. This rule aims to make it easier for us to see the rates brokers are getting, which could level the playing field.

Highlights from the Article:

• Transparency for Fair Play: OOIDA and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition pushed for this rule to give us clearer insight into freight rates. They're not saying it'll set prices, but it will help us negotiate better, without feeling like we're at a disadvantage.

"We support the free market and are trying to even the playing field so that truckers aren’t systematically negotiating with one hand behind their backs."

Safety Concerns: The National Owner Operators Association points out that not knowing the true load value can push carriers to work longer hours, risking safety by messing with Hours of Service rules.

"Carriers under financial pressure may feel forced to work longer hours, potentially violating Hours of Service regulations, which directly impacts safety."

Potential Backfire: Some worry this transparency might actually hurt us. Nadia Martin from Blakeman Transportation argues that knowing how little brokers make off loads could lead to a race to the bottom on rates, hurting carriers even more.

"Carriers would see that brokers don’t make much off the load already, and with transparency, it could cause broker rates to fall even more."

A Broader Debate: There's skepticism about whether this is the right move. Karyn Booth from the NITL questions if this is the best use of FMCSA's time, suggesting they should focus on safety and fraud instead. She also warns about setting a precedent that could affect other industries.

"Where does this go from here? Do you move to the ocean industry and start requiring disclosure of ocean freight forwarder rates?"

What's Next?

With Trump back in office, it's anyone's guess what will happen with this rule. Chris Burroughs from the TIA, who represent brokers, says they're unsure where Trump will land on this issue but are working to educate his team.

Here's the summary of an article just posted by Zerohedge:

California Abandons Regulations Phasing Out Diesel Trucks

Good News for Truckers!

California just pulled the plug on their crazy plan to force all our rigs to go electric. They sent a letter on Jan. 14 to the EPA saying, "Never mind!" and the EPA's like, "Okay, we're done here."

The bigwigs at CARB were trying to make truckers switch from diesel to zero-emission trucks, but with the new Trump administration coming in, they got cold feet. They didn't want to risk getting their plans shot down. Liane Randolph from CARB said,

"We're disappointed, but we had to do this because of all the uncertainty."

But here's the exciting part - this is a win for us! Eric Sauer from the California Trucking Association said,

"We were right from the start; this electric truck thing was just not doable." Now we can focus on reducing emissions in ways that actually work and won't break the bank.

Assemblyman James Gallagher is all for it, saying,

"This is great news for everyone. With this, we're not forcing something that's just not practical."

And let's talk real talk - electric trucks cost a fortune, they don't go as far, and we don't even know how much it'll cost to keep them running. Nelson Sibrian from Sibrian Trucking pointed out,

"We don't have the numbers on maintenance for electric trucks like we do with diesel. It's just too risky."

So, bottom line, we're keeping our diesel engines.