0:00
/
0:00
Aug. 31, 2025 | Bonus Episode: Abdul El-Sayed interview, Part 2
Aug. 31, 2025 | Bonus Episode: Abdul El-Sayed interview, Part 2
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
About this episode
Abdul El-Sayed discusses the future of vehicle ownership, safety, and emissions standards in the automotive industry. He emphasizes the need for a shift in focus from short-term financial gains to long-term investments in technology and safety for both drivers and pedestrians. El-Sayed critiques the industry's current approach, advocating for more inclusive regulations that prioritize human-centered transportation. The conversation also touches on the evolving demands of younger generations and the importance of adapting to these changes to ensure a sustainable automotive future.
Topics:
future of vehicle ownership
safety standards
emission regulations
urban planning
long-term investments
technology adaptation
financial incentives
human-centered transportation
Cars:
Chevrolet Camaro
In the second and final portion of his interview with Automotive News’ Molly Boigon, U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed discusses the future of safety and emissions standards, changing attitudes toward vehicle ownership and more.
Filter:
|
Technical
Too Afraid to Ask
Car
Chevrolet Camaro
"...s. I grew up in a time when my first car was a 95 Camaro. You have data everywhere, but is it working toge..."
Select text to request an explanation
You have data everywhere, but is it working together?
Meet Curator, the automotive industry's first unified intelligence engine.
Curator unifies data from all corners of your dealership to transform marketing, sales, and customer interactions.
See you today at Goobagoo.com.
Hey, it's daily drive executive producer Jake Nier.
On today's bonus episode of the show, we'll hear the second and final part of our interview with U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El Sayed.
On Wednesday's show, we brought you the first part of the Michigan Democrats' conversation with our own Molly Boygon.
If you didn't hear that part, go back and check it out.
In this portion of the interview, Dr. El Sayed talks about the future of safety and emission standards,
changing attitudes toward vehicle ownership, and more.
A car-centered society is not very healthy.
You've spoken about this before.
You have drivers commuting for long periods of time under stress, facing isolation, the climate impacts are well documented,
and then you have a lot of cities in this country that are not safe or easily navigable for other road users.
What do you think the future of America's reliance on cars look like?
Do you see, on average, an American family has between one and two cars?
Do you see that as continuing into the future?
You know, that's a really good and thoughtful question.
And I think it's going to be a question of what kind of lifestyles are young people today demanding?
I think in a lot of parts of the country, we are going to continue to rely on our automotive infrastructure and vehicles.
I think in other parts of the country, you're going to start seeing more multifamily housing being built
and more episodic reliance on automobiles.
I think there's going to be a place for cars in the future, no matter where we go.
And the question of how people choose to use them is going to be interesting too.
At the same time, you've got really interesting investments in technology
that are changing the kind of interaction that we have in our cars.
I grew up in a time when my first car was a 95 Camaro.
I loved the feeling of getting in that car, turning it on, feeling the engine roar
and driving myself where I wanted to go.
It was freedom for me.
I think you talk to young people now, and I'm still kind of youngish,
but I can't incredibly call myself young anymore, I guess.
But I talk to folks in their 20s now, and they'd much rather just call an Uber
that can come pick them up.
And so where the technology is headed, how folks want to live,
I think it's incumbent on the automotive industry to be asking,
all right, how do we pivot with the way that demand is pivoting
and how do we start creating the kinds of vehicles that people are going to be demanding?
But I think cars are still going to be a part of everyday life,
given the way that we've built out a lot of our infrastructure.
And I think the question is, how do you then make them the safest, healthiest,
most human-centered kinds of transportation that they can possibly be?
And what I'm saying is we need more investment in research and development,
more investment in seeing the future and getting there
than in trying to retrench backwards as the Trump administration is trying to do on us.
I cover vehicle software a lot at Automotive News,
and in the conversations that I have with especially folks on the engineering side,
there's a lot of frustration about what they describe as a sort of legacy attitude
and as you described, a sort of quarter-to-quarter view of vehicle development
and unwillingness, for example, in the case of like a software-defined vehicle
to sort of fully scrap a platform
and work on something that will enable more flexibility.
So when you talk about the auto industry's needing to pivot
to accommodate the sort of changing appetites for different modes of transportation,
I wonder if you think that the industry is really doing that right now
or if it has to sort of continue to adapt and change that approach.
I think they're trying. I really do think they're trying.
I think it's really tough because as you know,
the time horizon from which you design a platform and then it actually gets to the road,
that is a very long time.
And you have to have a sense of both where demand is headed
but also the financial circumstances under which you'll be working.
And I think the Trump administration,
given that they change their minds on our financial future every 30 minutes or so,
I think has made it really hard to think through where the investments ought to go
and how folks are going to pivot with the new financial incentives
that are being created every 30 minutes on the dot.
And then I think the other part of that though is that
there is an opportunity to be asking even outside the Trump administration
how is it that this financialized system that has us more interested in
a quarterly stock price than interested in the profitability
and strength of our industry 10 years from now,
how has that itself created disincentives to be making those kinds of long-term investments?
And I do think that there is an opportunity for us, obviously,
to address this Trump administration's completely chaotic and ham-handed approach to tariffs.
But also to be asking, well, why is it that we're so beholden to Wall Street
when we're trying to put cars on the street?
And I would much rather us be thinking about the kinds of regulations
at the financial side of things that allow the CEOs of the Big Three
to be asking that 10-year question,
investing in the engineers and the technologies of the future
to meet the demand where it's going rather than playing this game
of trying to appease some financial analyst on Wall Street.
And I think those two things have been the biggest challenge
to being able to meet demand where it's going to truly evolve
automotive in the direction that it's headed
and to continue to be the best producer of vehicles in the world.
I believe, again, deeply in the quality of our engineers,
they're the best in the world and I believe even more deeply
in the quality of the workers, they're the best in the world.
I just think we've got to get the financial incentives
and the politics out of the way.
What types of regulations do you think would shift
the orientation of the Big Three from Wall Street
to that long-term vision of success for the industry?
I think there are a couple.
I think you need to have labor on the boards
represented of every one of these Big Three.
I think we should be banning things like stock buybacks
that are a lot more about playing financial games
than they are about making sure that the long-term
profitability of this industry is cared for
and thought through.
I also think that there should be a question
of how much of leadership's remuneration comes
in the form of stocks versus comes in the form
of just straight income.
I think if you are able to take that short-term
financial incentive out of the decision-making
and you are able to make sure that the equities
of the people actually building our cars are considered,
I think you end up making far better long-term decisions.
And those are just a few of the kinds of changes
that frankly, you know, I think we should be thinking
through even beyond automotive,
but I think would be particularly liberating
when it comes to the automotive industry.
Coming up, more of Molly Boygon's conversation
with U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El Sayed.
Your dealership has no shortage of customer information.
But when that data is conflicting, messy,
and spread across a multitude of platforms,
it's impossible to activate properly.
As the automotive industry's first unified intelligence engine,
Curator enriches and unifies your customer data
across platforms, like your CRM, your DMS,
your website, and even your marketing efforts.
It then injects that information back
into your most vital systems to provide
a single view of each customer
and equip your sales team with the information
they need to close a deal.
When one of the largest volume Subaru dealers
in the country wanted to tap into its data goldmine,
they turned to Curator.
In just four months,
Huberger Subaru experienced a 55%
higher closing ratio and a return
of 15 times their investment.
Want to see it for yourself?
Check out the case study at goobigo.com
slash Curator.
That's G-U-B-A-G-O-O dot com
slash Curator.
The industry has made a lot
of strides in terms of making cars
safer for drivers,
but the result of that
has been a
complicated picture for safety for
other road users,
people outside the vehicle, like pedestrians
and cyclists. What role do you think
the government should play in
regulating the safety of cars
for people outside the vehicle?
Yeah, look, I think the industry
pivoted when they recognized that
the design that
we were seeing in the 40s
and 50s was built more around
the structural viability of a car
rather than the safety of the
person in the car.
You saw a lot of pressure on the industry
from folks like Ralph Nader and others,
and the industry responded, and we've got
safety records that are truly
actually incredible when you think about
what a car actually does and the speeds at which
they go. I think there's an opportunity
for us to also then say, look,
what happens when you put the minds of the
best engineers in the world to the test on saying,
okay, we've made this really, really safe
for the person in the car, how do we make it
safer for the person outside the car?
And I don't think that's just a question
for automotive engineers. I also think
that's a question for public policy makers
and urban planners, right? Because a lot
of the ways that we're designing
our communities
tend to create
spaces where somebody who's a pedestrian
or a cyclist may not actually
be as safe just because of where
we've placed them relative to folks
who are traveling in cars. I think this is a society
question that I think we can answer.
I know we can answer if we decide
that we value it enough to answer it.
And to me, again, it's about
taking a bet on the people in this
industry who have produced some of the most incredible
products in the world
to push even harder to make them
even safer and to perform
even better.
I think it's such an interesting time in the industry because
you have
this type of
next level thinking about expanding
the definition of safety.
You have
a very robust discussion
about what types of
powertrains the industry and the government
should be investing in.
And then you also hear from the
industry that
the companies feel very burdened
by the investments
that they have to make in technology
by the increasing number
of sensors and cameras that are going to be
required in the vehicle
just by this sort
of regulatory pressure
that exists in addition to
the already present global pressure
and consumer pressure
to develop products.
And I guess I wonder if
you think that
there's any merit to that industry
perspective that
at what point is enough enough?
Look, I
understand that this is a really, really hard
engineering problem. I also
happen to be the son of two engineers
and I know that engineers are
really, really excited by very hard
problems. Like that's what wakes them up every day.
And to me, I understand
that it would be easier
to ignore things like emission standards
or safety standards. I understand that.
But I also know that you are making one of the most important
products in the world and you're making it
for people. And the
regulatory push that exists
to make it safer, whether that means safer
for the person inside or the person outside
or safer for the person who's breathing
outside and having to breathe
the air that comes out of exhaust.
I think that
that is just the next
set of steps in the central
question of that original set of goals
of saying, hey, what if we could make this
horse and buggy without a horse and make it go?
And I think the engineers
that are putting their minds to this,
they're more than capable
of designing the kinds of cars
that can do these things, can do
them on spec safely.
And so, again, I just bet on their engineers.
Look, at the end of the day, though,
it's hard for me to take seriously
that notion when
I'm watching decisions get made
that are more about, you know, what
the price of a stock looks like
a quarter from now than what
the profitability of this company looks like
10 years from now. And I know
that the quality of our engineers
and the quality of our workers can produce
the kinds of automobiles
that people want to buy
that perform exceedingly well
that are really safe for people all
inside, outside, and even beyond
and that can outcompete any other car
in the world if the incentives are right.
And what I'd like to see is those incentives
being made right. And that
to me means that we are making sure we're
thinking 10 years on the horizon.
We're thinking about where demand is going
and we're thinking about how to return
as much of that value as possible to the people
who actually build these cars, the workers
who make the big three possible.
Dr. Abdul-Alsaya,
thank you so much for coming on Daily Drive.
Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it.
A quick note before we go.
This is the second in a series of interviews
with candidates running for
Michigan's Open U.S. Senate seat
in 2026. We interviewed
Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens
on our August 11th
episode of the show. Next week
we'll hear from Democratic State Senator
Mallory McMorrow. And we're
currently scheduling an interview with
former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers.
That's all for this
bonus episode of Daily Drive.
We're off on Monday for the Labor Day
holiday here in the U.S.
We'll be back on Tuesday with a brand new
full episode of the show.
Request an explanation for:
1 cars
1 cars featured
Request an Explanation
Heard something you'd like explained? We'll add it to this episode.
Sign in to request explanations for terms you heard.
Want to learn more?
Browse our glossary for plain-English explanations of automotive terms, jargon, and concepts.
Help improve this episode
See something that's not quite right? Our annotations are AI-generated and can sometimes miss the mark. Click the flag icon on any annotation to suggest a correction.
Report incorrect info
Suggest better explanations
Flag missing cars
More from Automotive News Daily Drive
June 6, 2026 | Weekend Drive: UAW strikes again; trade proposals set tone for USMCA talks
Jun 6, 2026
June 5th, 2026 | PayNearMe's Steve Kramer on ‘abandoned carts’; VW Golf's U.S. future
Jun 5, 2026
June 4th, 2026 | How USMCA review could hurt affordability; Nexperia coming to the U.S.
Jun 4, 2026
June 3rd, 2026 | Chrysler getting new SUVs from Fiat; how dealers can counter AI advice
Jun 3, 2026