This industry has always been diverse. There are regional distinctions as well as characteristic differences between types of motor carriers: van, reefer, flat bed, etc.  Historically, even though the industry disagreed on a lot of things, they pretty much agreed on one thing: government regulation was harmful to the efficient transportation of goods.  In fact, when the industry was deregulated many motor carriers flourished.

Today, however, the motor carrier industry is split on how to approach Electronic On Board Recorders (EOBRs).  Some have become early adopters and have begun equipping their fleet with EOBRs. They feel that since these devices are inevitable they might as well get on board now.  Besides, they feel strongly about the benefits of a safer driver fleet.  Accident reduction has a positive effect on the bottom line, a positive effect on CSA scores, and is viewed as a valuable sales tool.  These fleets, along with the ATA, feel strongly that EOBRs have a positive impact.

The early adopters are primarily large fleets.  Mid-size and smaller carriers and owner operators see the EOBR mandate as intrusive and as an increase in their operating expense without a payback.  In fact, some carriers are even using their lack of EOBRs as a recruiting tool, especially for owner operators.  There are even reports of carriers convincing customers to switch because of the perception that a carrier using EOBRs will not be able to provide the same level of service.  Although they may not state it directly, the inference is that their drivers and customers won't be hampered by the hours of service regulations and thus won't have to worry about fewer revenue miles and longer transit times.

Years ago the hours of service regulations were regarded as mere guidelines, not to be taken seriously.  That viewpoint has changed and the industry in general has adopted a viewpoint slanted toward safety and compliance.  But truck drivers still operate in a climate of self-regulation and the current paper based log system invites them to cut corners and engage in outright falsification.  Added to that are the ever present pressures to run more miles (thus increasing income) and satisfy customer's time-lines.

Motor carriers that argue for maintaining the status quo are, by default, endorsing a system that enables them to increase revenue by allowing, if not asking, drivers to simply work more hours and run more miles.  Given the climate of ever increasing enforcement (look at what's happening in the bus industry) and ever expanding legal problems (broker C. H. Robinson held liable for a motor carrier's accident) it's hard to understand how this industry could possibly support the viewpoint that the status quo should be maintained.

In any industry the early adopters generally prosper in the long run.  They're prepared for the regulatory change and their corporate culture is designed to embrace change as an opportunity.   Just look at what happened when this industry was deregulated.  Fleets that saw an opportunity grew, some to become industry leaders.  In fact, if you take a look at the top 100 carriers today there are very few names from the pre-deregulation days.  Some fleets may experience short term gains, but won't be positioned for the bigger long-term picture.