There were 1624 people killed on UK roads in 2023, 25% of which weren't wearing seat belts. Now, as driving instructors, I believe we can do more to reduce those numbers. That's why I've created this podcast, Driving Instructors Division Zero, where on the first of every month, I'll be giving you information and ideas for your driving school so you can create even safer drivers. And thank you for joining me on this fifth episode.
And later on in the show, we'll be joined by Ollie Taylor, who's talking to me from a top secret location. But before we get into that, we've got two amazing guests. First up is Dr. Liz Box explaining the RAC's recent graduated driving license proposal, including the idea of a six month minimum learning period. Then it's Denise Rowe from HELP talking to us about what they do and how we can support them. Now, Driving Instructors Division Zero is part of the Instructor Podcast network.
And to find out more, head over to the instructor podcast.com where you can find a bunch of road safety resources and a whole heap of content for ADIs and PDIs. But for now, if you've clicked, follow on your podcast player of choice. Enjoy the show. So, Dr. Box, thank you for joining me today. And I want to kick off by asking you about the graduating driving license proposal that yourself and the RAC foundation have put together.
Because graduated driving license is something that been talked about for a while, but it feels like no one's ever almost stamped their authority a little bit and said this is what we believe we should be doing. So I'm just wondering why you've chosen to do that now. Yeah, Terry, that's a really good question. And you're completely right. We've been talking about graduated driver licensing in this country for many, many years. It's been in place in other countries for around 30 years.
So why did we decide to do this now? I think for the very reason that it can be quite complicated and there's lots of different components you can add to a graduated driver licensing system. So with a new government in place, who will be thinking about what they want to do in terms of road safety?
And when we've heard from the Secretary of State, Louise Hay, that she wants to put in place a race safety strategy, we thought that would be really important to kind of put a bit of flesh on the bones of what is often talked about with GDL. Many of your listeners will know that PACs have recently put out their manifesto and graduated driver licensing is one of those four asks so there's a lot of interest in this.
People will be aware of the Forget Me Not Families campaign with now almost, I think over 150 families coming together to campaign for changes to the licensing process. So what we wanted to do at the RAC foundation was take the work that we've done previously, we've published reports in this subject over the last 10 years or so and really look at the data and understand there's so many different things you could do here.
If we actually modeled the data from 2022, which is what we had at the time, and we've updated it recently with the new data. But if we modeled, okay, so let's just look at 17 to 19 year olds or let's look at 17 to 25 year olds. So we went through that process of looking at what impact the different components would have and then we had in mind as well, thinking there's been such a lot of opposition to graduated driver licensing.
And whilst we're always trying to get the best evidence gold standard option in place, which could be, you know, 12 month minimum learning periods, 12 months, no passengers, no driving at night, other countries do have these schemes in place. If you're never going to get that in place, then you're still losing lives that you could have saved if we'd actually had something that was a little bit more suitable or acceptable to the public and politicians in this country.
So I think that's why we thought now was a good time to look at this. And yeah, it certainly helped encourage the debate, it seems as well. Well, you mentioned 17 to 19 year olds and you mentioned 17 to 25 year olds within this proposal, you specifically in 17 to 19 year olds, what made you choose that category rather than the, the biggest? 17 to 25. Yes. So there was two reasons really.
It was both the data and what the data told us and what the science tells us, but also kind of what we know from the public and political debate around this issue. So first to look at the science and again, your listeners will well understand that we know that risk for young drivers really drops off very quite sharply with experience, but also with age.
So when you kind of look at risk curves and if anybody's had a look at the proposal that we've put together, there's a risk curve in there and it's, it drops really sharply between 17 to 19. That is the point in terms of brain development and in terms of those social environments that people involved in that, that are the most risky once you get over 20. Yes. The brain doesn't fully develop until age 25. We have neuroscience that tells us that now.
Yeah, so you mentioned 17 to 19 year olds and 19, sorry, 17 to 25 year olds. What's made you choose a 17 to 19 year olds rather than the bigger bracket? Yeah, so there's two reasons for that really. There's both the kind of the science behind why we've chosen that as the focus, but also kind of the public and political discussion as well. So if anybody's had a look at the very short paper that we've put out on the proposal, they'll see that there's a risk curve in there and it shows.
We know that risk reduces with experience and with age. And the thing is, the risk really reduces quite sharply between between the ages of 17 and 19. So that is where young people, given their age development, you know, their development at that stage, they're much more at risk. I mean, we know that the brain doesn't fully develop until age 25, but it's that 17 to 19 year old stage that is the most at risk. And also Once you're over 20, people are in different life environments.
You know, people can have many more commitments, life commitments, et cetera. That it, it felt like the evidence and the kind of the real world was showing that actually if we focus on 17 to 19 year olds, that could be something that could still do something really helpful for reducing killed and seriously injured on the road. And we must remember when we talk about this, we always think about saving young people and their passengers.
But there are only 50% of those that are involved in collisions involving that particular age group. 50% are just other people that were out there on the road going about their day to day business. So this is kind of a real public health issue, not just for young people, but for everyone that shares the roads with them. I am curious with this actually, because you talk about the data and stuff there. Well, males are sort of notoriously higher risk when we look at the statistics. And what's that?
The biggest killer of teenage girls is teenage boys. And was there ever a consideration to make this a male thing and not include females in this? With the disparity in statsa. Yeah, I mean you're completely right. It's important to say that we see this in all areas of public health, that males are just riskier than females across the lifespan. And obviously there's a particular spike at this particular age, whatever risky behaviour you're looking at.
And kind of the reasons for that is that generally women personality wise are typically more similar to each other. You'll get males that are kind of much more different to each other. So that's kind of a relationship to kind of why that that's the case. But no, we, we didn't look at that. There isn't any other scheme throughout the world that looks at gender differences despite that risk disparity. And I think that's because we still have this experience issue regardless of gender.
So you know, when once people have passed their driving test and they're out in the roads for the first time, they've got to still understand what the rules of the roads are like when they don't have a coach in the car with them, understanding the hazards around them, how people actually are behaving and interpreting that correctly. And that's the case whether you're male or female.
So experience is a big reason why you need graduated driver licensing or lack of experience and therefore you wouldn't want to address that anyway. And as you say maturity, it depends on individual factors as well as gender factors. So I don't think anybody would want to go down, down that particular route because this is really a population based measure for that particular at risk group.
Let's take a look at the graduated driving license proposal then, because there's three key elements within this and I think the first one is probably the one that instructors are going to be most interested in. So it should be required to undergo a minimum six month learning period before being eligible to take a practical test or six months learning period. What does a six month learning period mean?
Yeah, this is a really interesting one and I should say as part of this development of the proposal, we held a roundtable, I think towards the end of spring, early summer, we had various people come round and have a look at the data that we'd pulled together and were thinking through these things. And it's really knotty and difficult, isn't it? Because six months, what does that mean? What does that mean in terms of hours? How do you prove that you've done that?
I think it's fair to say for this proposal as if any proposed or there's a huge amount to be worked out about how that would work in practice. What we wanted to look at was, okay, what did other countries do? And it's quite typical for other countries to have a 12 month minimum learning period or a, say, have 100 hours behind you.
So one or the other, what we thought was going to be quite important for public and political acceptability was because of the need for mobility for young people is Having a scheme that essentially by age 18 meant that they typically wouldn't be under it anymore unless obviously they decide to learn to drive later.
But if somebody wanted to learn to drive at 17, they could then take their test at 17 and a half, obviously depending on test slots and all of that, and then they would be out of restriction by age 18. So again, it was about trying to balance up that kind of what's the optimum to do and kind of what would help achieve that kind of political and public acceptability, if you like. So you know, it's, we did, as I say, go through the whole. Should you have so many hours, how would you prove this?
We thought, well, either you could show that you've got some insurance, learner driver insurance on your own vehicle, if you're doing some private practice, or, or receipts of actually driving tuition to demonstrate that you have actually done some learning in that six month period. But it's fair to say it's all to be worked out.
But we given how many months that people typically learn to drive at the moment, and I think some of the stats from DVSA were saying that just over 20% were going for their driving test within one month of starting to learn to drive, which I found an astounding stats.
We do all these other things in life that young people have just taken GCSEs A levels, worked on them for a year or more and then expecting to be able to learn a critical life skill which has huge implications if you guess it wrong within a month. So there's something we need to do about expectations around how quickly people can. We've talked before, haven't we, about you can physically learn to drive so quickly.
But it's much more than that in terms of actually being a safe driver and actually recognizing all the skills you need and awareness to drive safely on the road. I think a couple of things here that throw me a little bit. So one, you mentioned the DVSA stats. I think those stats are skewed massively. You know, like even someone take it within a month.
I wonder how many of those people are the ones that I'll get an inquiry from and say I've got a test booked for such and such, can you pass me in time? And then they can ask the wind up taking in their mum's car or whatever. So it's, I think that those stats are skewed a little bit. But it's, it's. I like the idea of learning over six. Well, I like the real another 12 months.
I like the idea of loading over six months, but it's that idea of, in theory is that not just letting someone take 10 hours, but spreading it over six months. I mean we haven't, as I say, we haven't been specific because I think, and as you said kind of right at the beginning of this conversation, nobody really to date is kind of put a bit of a line in the sand to say how about this? I mean it's not, it's not a straw man, it's much more complete than that.
But I think it's the six month minimum learning period element that does need the most kind of iteration work, work with yourself and oven driving instructors to really well, do you need logbooks? How much time would you expect people to have?
And I think the reason really why we wanted to have these three elements is one, because it seemed to be the most effective package that we came across from the data, but also when you're talking to the public and actually I did a interview earlier today where somebody was talking about the New Zealand system and the interviewer said, wow, that sounds incredibly complicated.
And I think what we need to do here is to kind of make this much less complicated and very easily understandable to see why it's in place and actually how you can progress through it. Because otherwise you kind of lose the argument and you lose people with that as well. So, you know, I think we have to think through all those implications, but really we think it's a good starting point.
Yeah, I mean I do like the idea of a loading period, especially sort of at least six months because some I've been talking a lot about recently is the tagline safe driving for life, which I really dislike because it's almost impossible to do that. We want to teach people to think and create and solve problems and become know thinking about their driving in that aspect rather than robots.
But if we're making it over a longer period, we're given the opportunity to experience different weather conditions, to experience different, you know, elements of driving, like rush hour, that kind of stuff, rather than cramming on the sim. And one of my things at a minute, one of my little pet phrases is because most instructors will teach during the daytime, especially over the summer. Do we teach safe driving for life or do we teach safe daytime driving for life?
And I think that if we can make that learning period longer, it gives us more opportunity to teach in those different conditions. Is that one of the things you're aiming at? Yeah, absolutely, you're completely right. And that's the advice that we would give everybody at the moment, wouldn't we? I mean, I would say, you know, best practice advice and is that you would learn over a 12 month period.
You'd get to see all of those different conditions, weather conditions, build up your experience over time and keep practicing at it. So I think the other key thing as part of this is we wouldn't want people that might have previously taken 8, 10 months to learn 12 months to think, oh gosh, I should be doing this in six either. It's kind of really at least a minimum level because we don't really have that at the moment.
And as we were discussing with those DVSA stats, you are having people come forward far too early. And to what extent is some of this early booking because people are finding it hard to get tests, but then does that then feed the problem and then you have less tests because people are booking before they're ready.
So I mean, hopefully some of this will help to ensure that when people do present its test, they are ready to take their test and they've got a better chance of being able to pass it and it will improve the system overall because at the moment it's just really challenging, isn't it for people to get those tests and you can see how this behavior kind of happens as a result.
Yeah. And I know like you mentioned, you still formulating some of the detail behind it, but will this be like a minimum amount with instructors or will it be just like you can just learn with your parents or what will the scenario be there, do you think? Yeah, I mean, I think always the advice that's typically given is, you know, you ideally you'd want to have a blend of both.
We recognize that there's financial constraints for being able to say you need to get a certain number of hours with an instructor. Obviously there is advice already available on that. So it wouldn't be looking to change anything that's already out there. I think the thing that often tends to need to be presented is that it's really important to get that private practice because that helps to build up your just your experience on the roads.
And yes, okay, you won't have the inexperience instructed by you and there's a potential to learn bad habits potentially by a parent, guardian or somebody else that's taking you out. But just the sheer we know from the research just getting that experience under your belt is so important. So again, I'm sorry, it's one of those answers of we're not sure yet. But I think there's a. This is really what we want to encourage is the discussion about what should be in it.
And I think hopefully if the government decides that they want to pursue this, I can imagine there being, you know, consultations where they'll be asking driving instructors and others about views about where the balance should be. So, yeah, I mean, with a six month learning period is the basic premise behind it, the trying to get as much experience behind the wheel on the road as possible? Yeah, absolutely. It's to do two things really.
It's to reduce the numbers of people going forward too early for a test, either using that as a opportunity to get on the road or as a test or as a practice for the actual test, because we know that's causing difficulties with the system. But it's also to promote the idea that you should be doing this over time and setting those expectations of what a suitable amount of time is. I mean, as we've discussed, ideally you'd probably want a 12 month minimum learning period.
But what we're looking at again is it's much better to have something in place rather than, you know, we can't get to that gold standard. So we'll end up with nothing, which is kind of what we've continued to do. Well, certainly for as long as I've been involved in this area, we've had the discussions and we still ended up with no improvements.
So, you know, you could eventually have something like this in place and then you would imagine that over the time people would review it and say, is this still fit for purpose? What's happening elsewhere? Do we adjust it? And that could be adjusted either way, but I think we just really need a starting point and then to move on from there. Let's move on to the next one then.
So should not be entitled to carry any passengers 25 or under unless accompanied by an older adult for the first six months after passing. This would apply. So why are we looking at not carrying passengers under 25? Yeah, so this is all around the research related to, well, brain development and the effect that traveling with peer passengers or peer aged passengers has on risky driving behavior.
So there's been some really interesting studies done over time that essentially shows and consistently shows that if a younger driver, let's say between the ages of 17 and 25, were to be in a vehicle and they had their friend sitting next door to them, they would be much more likely to take risks on the road. And some of the simulator studies have sort of looked at going through red lights, amber lights, and the propensity to do that versus having an older adult next door to you.
And also what's really interesting, I think, is they've done these studies showing that not just having the person in the vehicle with them, but saying to them, okay, you've got somebody watching you doing this behavior. And even that influences young people. And this is, it's a very natural kind of biological process that occurs in terms of young people turning to their peers more than much more engaged and interested in what their peers think.
That's a very natural thing to happen at that stage. But therefore, in those, what the science tells us is in those really cool, neutral environments, young people are able to plan and decide what to do just as well as adults are. But in those hot emotional environments, they do get affected by their biology in terms of the impact of things like dopamine on the system and the risk rewards that they will take.
So, you know, we've, we've known this for a long time and there's more and more neuroscience now that's kind of really very much proving what has been theorised for quite a long time.
So essentially this particular measure is about trying to take essentially newly qualified drivers out of that really risky situation where they are driving as an inexperienced and young person in the presence of their peers, which means they're much more likely to take those risks, even if they might have said they weren't going to do that beforehand. It's just, it's just the environment that might promote that risk taking.
So essentially it's all about providing those safeguards, I guess, in place. It's been interesting, really, in the media discussion. It's been very much discussed as often as bans, restrictions.
But I think we really do have to think of these things as safeguards because there are really good scientific reasons why you want to get that experience and that a little bit older under your belt before you then take on that responsibility of having another young person in the car with you and having that opportunity to do that.
So essentially, I think what I'm saying is there's really good science behind why the passenger restriction is really important and why we wanted to include that over some of the others that you might have wanted to put in there. I'm just thinking of believing the science, remembering what happened a few years ago and all the fuss around that. Let's not talk about that and go down that rabbit hole. So they're really the only two safeguards that we're putting in place.
And I want to ask you a little bit about enforcement because it's one of the common things, I hear how we're going to enforce this, but I think that ties in with the third point that you make around this, which is that the penalty for not adhering to those two safeguards is six points, which would result in the license suspension and then retaking the driving test. So is that third point of the penalty being six points? Is that part of the sort of the enforcement measure?
Yeah, it always gets raised actually in the importance of enforcement and how will this be enforced? And I think always my immediate answer to that is, well, we have the rules of the road. And actually rules of the road aren't enforced 100% of the time, all the time. Obviously we have speed cameras to check if you're traveling the speed limit. So we have to kind of see any new laws, how they would be enforced and fit in with the existing system that we have.
When we tend to think about enforcement, it's really important to remember that actually it's parents and guardians that are the kind of key enforcers of this particular change. Because actually young, well, parents and guardians are the ones that are typically paying for vehicles, helping young people get on the road and therefore still do, certainly between the ages of 17 and 19, have much more influence.
And when we've looked internationally at kind of what is happening here, all of these issues always get raised up at the beginning. And it's interesting to talk to academics that have kind of been through the introduction and the kind of public acceptance, and it's never really seem to be an issue once it's in place, which is encouraging, I think, from our perspective, because enforcement's always been a concern. But actually in practice, parents do take a really strong role in it.
And actually, if you think of countries like the US what they tend to do then is use initiatives in schools and potentially through driving instructors as well, to actually talk about parent teen agreements, to actually sit down and say, okay, well, what's your first six months going to look like? And okay, this is the law, so it has to include this element. But what other things might you want to look into gradually increasing potentially, and what does it look like afterwards?
So it kind of opens up those conversations. And to me, that's why it's really important that we get a change in the licensing system, because there's plenty of parents out there. And I've seen it from the discussions that have happened that there's plenty of parents that say, well, I'm doing this anyway. I'm not allowing young people in my child's car for that first three, six months, whatever, because I can see why that's the case.
But that's incredibly hard to do as an individual when that's not the general rule. You can imagine young people get a huge amount of pressure and it becomes really hard for them. So that's kind of why we need that systems change to really support safety for everybody else, to kind of bring.
Alongside that, really the enforcement one is one that I think I see brought up more than any other in terms of argument, but I think it's also the weakest in terms of a negative argument because it's like if burglary. Well, burglary isn't enforced 100% of the time, but we don't legalize it because it's not enforced. So do you think that's just sometimes people looking for an excuse when they're, when they look at reasons like that? I don't know. I don't know if it's people looking for excuse.
I can see where the question comes from because it's a bit different to what our current laws are. As you say, like you. If you're, if you're speeding, there's a kind of a way to detect that with a speed camera that's reliable, can go to court, etc. I've had people question, well, how can a police officer look at a car and work out, well, are those people within the restriction or not?
And I think that was why it was important for us to make the exemption that essentially you could travel with your mum, your dad, your nan, but not with young people. One, because actually getting experience with other family members and building up that experience with other people in the car, but aren't ones that are going to be promoting those risks is really important. But also we just, we just don't want them to be in that environment with their peers. So I can see why people raise it.
But at the same time I agree with you. It's no different to any other law that we have in place. I do think it's worth mentioning some of the exemptions because in particular around the passengers under 25. So I know that things like young parents will be allowed to have kids in the car and stuff like that. I do just want to clarify one thing with you, though. You mentioned it a couple of times, but on the publication you put out, it wasn't mentioned.
So when you say young parents that include guardians as well, I'm presuming yes, yes. So that that would be essentially it, that you would have to be a parent or guardian of a young child to be be able to travel with them. So that exemption was in place. I think the way we put this together is lots of other countries have much more, I'd say strict measures in place as they say, 12 month minimum learning period, you know, 12 months, no passengers, nighttime restrictions.
And then they have to have a whole load of exemptions to allow people to go about, to go to education, to work. And really what we thought would be much easier to be kind of like this is the rules, they are weaker, but therefore there's no exemptions from them, apart from those particular cases that we talked about there. Because obviously young parents would need to be able to carry their children.
There could be a few work related exemptions and actually some of that would be dealt with in the licensing. If you were, you know, a bus driver, a lorry driver, whatever, that would be different anyway. So yeah, we do need to look at a few exemptions but we want to generally keep it simple and straightforward so that everybody kind of knows where they are.
I suppose the last thing I'll mention, and this is my own kind of personal anecdotal experience, but just by talking about this, it raises awareness. So when I've spoken to my students or some of their parents, it makes them see some of the dangers perhaps that they weren't aware of because all of a sudden it sounds like a bigger deal.
So you know, even if this doesn't go through, I mean, hopefully it does, but even if it doesn't go through is just talking about, do you think, is that going to have a benefit as well? Yeah, absolutely, completely agree. And when speaking to members of the of BREE families and kind of their discussion points, often many of them will say, we had absolutely no idea that this was going to be a really risky situation. We were worried about other things.
I mean there's plenty of things to worry about with young people as they're getting their independence and risk taken making. But this wasn't kind of high up their list. And I given that, you know, you can take your driving test and you can pass and then you can have all of the freedoms that everybody has when they've been experienced drivers for many years. There's no, there's no nothing in the system that's telling parents at the moment this is a really risky period.
They, they rightly assume that they've, they've passed a government mandated test and therefore they must be safe. So as you say, I think being able to have these discussions, raising awareness is really important. As well. And it allows families to have those discussions themselves and potentially put their own rules in place. But as I said, it would be much more effective if we could get something in the place that supports everybody, that supports those decisions that they're making.
Well, since we last recorded, we touched on this briefly last time, but since we last recorded, we've got a new government. It feels like there's some fresh momentum behind graduating driving license as well. It feels like there's a growing understanding of it as well. Is it going to happen? Oh, gosh. The question. I agree with you. We have a new government in place. It does feel different. It feels like there is some positive momentum.
Obviously, government at this stage are very much in listening mode and asking questions. They are showing interest in this and other areas. It's good that the Secretary of State, Louise Hay, has said that road safety is a key priority for her as a Secretary of State for the department. And we don't often hear that or haven't heard that for some time. Normally it's left to the ministers who are responsible for that area to talk about the importance.
So it's great to see that it's kind of high up on the agenda at the highest level and it's great to see that they've also committed to putting a road safety strategy forwards, which we not had for a long time. So hopefully, and this will feature within it. I think I saw some kind of correspondence which highlighted that one of the ministers was, or Lillian Greenwood was looking at young and novice drivers as a key area of focus. Of course they would do, because we know they are so at risk.
Obviously that wasn't saying that graduated driver licensing was going to be the thing, but clearly they're going to be thinking about how to address this user group. So, yeah, fingers crossed. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Is there anything else you want to touch on today around this topic? Oh, I. I don't think so, really, other than to say, you know, thank you to the sector generally.
I think it's been really encouraging to see so many organizations, particularly coming behind the pacs manifesto and supporting that. And obviously graduated driver licensing is one of the four asks within that manifesto.
And I think it's really starting to show how powerful as a sector we can be when we all come together, whether we be researchers, obviously all sector of driving instructors, charities, organizations, obviously the police, fire and actually when we can kind of coalesce behind some of these key issues that, you know, we've all seen the evidence for.
We've seen these things go round and round again and actually if we can come together and ask for a similar set of options, I think it makes it then a much easier ask of policymakers rather than having lots of scattered ideas here and there and everywhere. So I think the sector is doing a fantastic job at coming together and promoting some of these key issues and I'm really hopeful that we're going to see some really positive change, hopefully soon.
Well, I'm going to include links for some of the things we spoke about today in the show notes, but do you want to take a moment to tell people where they can find more? Dr. Box? Goodness. Well, if anybody wants to find out what we're doing at the RAC Foundation, I think it sounds like, Terry, you'll be putting a link to that policy proposal. But do do have a look in there.
I'm on LinkedIn and X and all those usual places and I try and put relevant things up there that people might find of interest. So feel free to follow there as well. Can't believe you've succumbed to call X and you're not still calling it Twitter. Yes, thanks, Terry. So we're now joined by Denise Row from help. How we doing, Denise? I'm fine, thank you. How are you all? Better. Seeing your smiley face, obviously.
And thank you for joining me today because we first met at the imtd, which I always get this acronym wrong, Institute of Master Tutors of Driving. And we first met down there and we're having a bit of a chat about what you do. And I thought, oh, this is something I want on my podcast because whilst it may not be specifically like driving instructor related, as driving instructors, we're part of the SAFE system. And the SAFE system is something I talk about a lot and you look at post crash care.
So do you want to tell us what HELP is? The HELP Appeal is an acronym for Helicopter Emergency Landing Pads. What we do is we fund helipads at major trauma and AE hospitals. There's no government funding, there's no lottery funding for us. So what we do is install the pads, which ultimately will help to save your life should you be in that scenario. It's also important to say that roughly 18% of landings are RTC related. Just for anyone listening, RTC, road traffic collision.
I'm bad with acronyms, but I know that one. How important are these? Because if they're not installed all over and if they're not funded by the government, how important is it that we have these helipads in place in Terms of quick response. Oh, it's, it's vital. It's important to say that we're not the air ambulance. What we do is we support by installing the helic pads. So, for example, when you land at a hospital, I can give you a more recent one.
Salford Major Trauma was taking up to 25 minutes to transfer the patient, which takes you out of your golden hour. Sometimes it's now three minutes, so that does effectively save your life. When you say golden hour, what do you mean by golden hour? Well, being a non medic, I understand the golden hour as being a 60 minutes from your injury or whatever it is, you know, heart attack. If you get treated within that time, your chance of survival and recovery time increases tenfold.
And you mentioned funding before, because I think there'll be a lot of people out there like me that will just assume that all this is funded by the government. And I can't get my head around why it isn't. You know, if this, if this is needed, is this going to reduce that time, like you get the example of, from 25 minutes to 3 minutes? Why isn't. So I'm just wondering if you can do two things for me.
First of all, shed any light on why it's not funded and potentially tell us how you are then funded. Right. I think it's a really good question as to why. Why is it not funded? The honest answer is I don't know. I don't know. I think it makes sense. I'm assuming that there isn't the money for it. How we fund it is generous individuals, people who go out, who do a pub quiz, who do something in their community to playing the lottery, to sort of business.
Businesses will help us, not just in a financial way, but promoting ourselves and raising our. The awareness that we exist and who we are and what we do. There are numerous ways that you can raise money. You know, Whether you're raising £100 or £1,000, it all chips away. And it's really important that people, the general public and businesses involve themselves. Yeah, and you did mention the lottery there. I just want to clarify, because you don't have funding from the lottery, do you?
The lottery you're referring to is a lottery that you run. Yeah. You can sign up to our lottery for £5amonth and, you know, you can win like £1,000 or once a year, it's £10,000, you know, you can.
The AO arena in Manchester, generously donating tickets each month, which we effectively raffle, is the easiest way we do A limited number of tickets and it costs you 10 pound to have an opportunity of winning a 200, 250 pound experience, which, you know, ultimately it raises £1,000amonth, which is £12,000 a year. But how many people who have that experience will then go on to do something else for us? Yeah, I'm interested to know a little bit more about health.
So keen to know what are some of the biggest achievements or maybe some of the projects that stand out above the others that you've worked on. Okay, well, to give you a little bit of a potted history, the first helipad was opened in 2009. And over the past 15 years, 50 new or upgraded helipads have come operational across the country. There are still over 50 projects in the pipeline and without generous supporters for the life saving helipads, you know, we couldn't do what we do.
We helped to introduce the DEC integrated firefighting system to rooftop helipads for the first time, which ultimately has saved 250,000 pound annually to each hospital because they don't have to pay for a firefighter to be on site. We've put lifts in. That's Salford is now a lift. You land on the roof and you're straight into the lift and down. We have put in light systems.
It's mad to think that even hospitals that had helipads have helipads, sorry, didn't have lights so they couldn't do nighttime landing. That the costs can range, to give you an example, from 250,000 up to 9 million. So that's a lot of fundraising that's going on. You know, it's sort of, it's a lot of people doing a lot of good. I would say no, I like it. And I'd said before and I still can't, I can't get my head around why this isn't funded.
I know there's only so much money in the pot, but I don't want to get too political. I'll leave that there. But you're right, there's a lot of people doing a lot of good and it's part of the reason why I wanted you on to come and highlight this and give you a chance to showcase it because as you said, a lot of this will come from RTCs. And so I think it's good what you do. But I also just want to ask you about your role.
What's your role within help, because I know you've not been in it for that long, but what's your role? My role? Well, We're a very small team, you know, we don't have lots of different departments as backup systems. We all pull together. There's roughly 10 of us, there's two of us who do the fundraising, which is myself and I do nationwide and Leslie Obie, my fabulous colleague who does more regional areas. We do it because we believe in it. That's the honest answer.
Lesley has personal experience, which is her drive. And my drive is because of the Lesleys of this world want to make a difference. It's also important to add on that we fund critical care cars and the equipment through basics. I'm hoping you don't ask me for the ackerman of basics. Hang on. It is the British association for Immediate Care and they then will ensure that the critical care cars, the equipment needed from PPE to medical staff to kitting out a helicopter goes to the right places.
So we support them. But they're also a fabulous organization. So it, it's one of them. We wear many caps. Yeah. It always fascinates me the more I talk to people from the road safety sector like, you know, your road peace and you break and obviously help that it's small teams. And I said at the start of this recording, from the outside looking in, you would see someone like yourself and oh, big organization that's going with, funded from government.
Everyone's going to be making hundreds of thousands of pounds of annual income. It's like, nah, it's not like that when you, when you take a bit more of a deep dive. But I want to sort of finish up by asking you, what would you like ADI to do off the back of this? How can ADIs help?
You can really help by supporting us, whether that be through social media channels, simply following us on social media, sharing our platforms and activity, supporting us by participating in fundraising campaigns within your local community. You can make regular or one off donations, you can join our lottery. You know, you can have a go at going to the AO arena to see a favorite band. You know, there's, there's a multitude of ways that you can support us and if you're not sure, get in touch.
That's what we're here for. You know, we'll give you ideas, we'll support you through it. You know, I can't stress enough without our supporters generosity, we and a huge number of life saving helipads across the country just wouldn't exist. And people don't realize that. It's also important to say that we, you know, once we put them in, people like the trusts can come back and ask us for modernization and things like that. We don't just sort of do it and walk away.
There's a responsibility to it. I mean, one of the big things you mentioned there for me is the social media aspect and following and sharing what you do, because something I encourage a lot of instructors to do. Just pick one post a week from a road safety organization and share it on your driving school.
You know, that might be seen by a hundred to five hundred people or whatever, but it might be the one thing that connects with one person that then reaches out to you or joins your lottery or does decide to do some fundraising. So just by sharing a post, you can have a bigger impact than you realize. So I would really implore driving instructors to do that a little bit. But everything you kind of spoke about there you can find@the helpappeal.org UK and will be links for that in the show notes.
But I just want to take a moment to say thank you for joining me today. It's been. Been a pleasure talking to you and find out more. Oh, thank you very much for having me. I hope I've covered everything and please come back to me if you're listening to this and you want to know more about what we do. Thank you. All right, so we're now joined by Ollie Taylor for his final thoughts. How we doing, Ollie? Oh, I'm really good, thank you, Terry. Really good.
And yourself, all the better for seeing your smiley face, especially because we're getting. We're even more privileged to have you today because you are talking to me from a secret location. We had to Where's O with a secret location. So can you give us any clue? I should just say, actually, for the. For the listeners, there is the chance the Internet may go outside this. So if it's a little bit ropey at points, that's why. But we should be good.
But can you give us any clues as to where you are? Well, yes, well, I can't. While I can't disclose the actual location, Terry, about three weeks ago I was offered an opportunity to temporarily step back into policing. However, not in the uk. It's at one of what's classed as a British overseas territory. So I am overseas at the moment. I can tell you that I am south of the equator. I'm in the southern hemisphere.
I'm about a thousand, just over a thousand miles from the nearest landmass on a very small island, no hills. The island's highest point of this island is about 22ft above sea level. And I'm six hours difference time wise in the UK. I'm not going to say whether it's six hours ahead or six hours behind, but I'm about six hours difference and back out doing something that I thought I wouldn't step back into ever. However, I am back in policing just for a short time.
I've been sworn back in as an officer locally to support the local police where I am along with some other former retired colleagues from around the country and actually really enjoying it. But it did give me. So if your, any of your listeners can maybe guess where I am at the moment, maybe then when this goes out they could pop it in the, in the comment, in the comments bar or the comments box. Who knows, somebody can.
Somebody out there has probably got a good enough knowledge of geography to work out where I am. My geographical knowledge would not be good enough to work that out if you hadn't saw me beforehand. But having used the phrase Where's Ollie? I'm now thinking that whenever you're an expo or anything like that, we should get some pictures of you in the crowd and make a little book up of Where's Ollie? So you know that that could be a little novelty with people.
The first person to get into a free like one month on the Honest Truth or something if they can get you in a minute. I don't know, might not be the smartest idea about today, but it's definitely not the worst. All right, but you being where you were did give you kind of an idea for today's final thought. So do you want to tell us what you were thinking? Absolutely, Terry. Now, interesting this one, this where I currently am, a lot of people actually travel around by bicycle.
The speed limits around the island are very low. There aren't that many cars here. So there's a, like I say, a lot of, a lot of the people that are here do travel on bicycles. And whilst learning about some of the, the laws here, very, very much based around British, the British legal system, but there are some, some interesting little additional laws and around vulnerable road users in particular.
Now as we know the hierarchy of road users and the sort of, the additional responsibilities that drivers have towards those more vulnerable themselves, they bear the greatest responsibility to reduce the risk they pose to those who are at greater risk on the road, as we all know or should know. So it got me thinking, I was looking into some of this legislation and the penalties for some offences involving cycling here are actually fairly harsh on the spot finds are considerable.
Things like not wearing a helmet and it has to be fully fastened. If you're riding a bike, you've got to wear a cycle helmet and it's got to be fully fastened. That in the uk, for example, I believe would save countless serious and traumatic head injuries every year in the UK if it became law to wear a cycle hat, as it is here, lights on your bicycle, you've got to have front and rear lights arching out of darkness and they've got to be working, lit and working again.
If not, you can be subject of a fairly hefty fine. But again, how many cyclists do we see in the UK riding along? And again, I've seen them countless times riding along after dark on a dark bike, bicycle in dark Logan. And you just cannot see that they merge into the. Into the night, basically. They blend into backgrounds, they blend into walls, whatever it is, you just can't see them. So it got me thinking and thinking about vulnerable road users.
And I thought, actually, what a great time for my final thought this month to be around vulnerable road users in general, but particularly those who are maybe out running, those who are pedestrians riding horses. But I mentioned horses. The British Horse Society will be ringing me up. I know Alan very well and he will bring me up. So horses and penny cyclists. Because actually, while I've been away, the clocks have gone back in the uk, so evenings are darker.
So it's really about anybody out there, anybody listening. I know all the instructors that listen to this will be eyes peeled, but if they're taking out pupils in the evenings for evening lessons and giving them that exposure in the darkness and giving them that exposure of that different time of day, it's getting them to think about vulnerable road users who are vulnerable road users. How can we spot them?
How can we look for clues and hints and tips that might give us an indication as a vulnerable road user head for them to be dealing with, but as vulnerable road users ourselves. And we're all vulnerable road users at some point, Terry. We're all pedestrians at some point, for example. So as vulnerable road users, we need to make sure that actually we do our bit to keep ourselves as safe as possible, sticking to footpaths, sticking to pavements, wherever we. Wherever possible.
And if it's not carrying a torch of some sort, carrying a light, you know, it's a head torch or a handheld torch, or, you know, wearing something reflective that headlights will bounce off so that actually a driver can pick you up instantly if you are up ahead of them on a bicycle or walking or riding a horse or whatever it might be. So so very much this month is about vulnerable road users.
Think about your visibility for other motorists and for motorists, think about vulnerable road users and how you can spot them. Don't just look once, look twice, look three times. Not just look, but see as well the difference between looking and seeing. Okay, so look for them, but also see them. That way, everyone's safe on the roads. We've done our bit within the hierarchy of road users. Thunder reviews are safe, everyone's happy, job done.
I mean, I'm going to tell you briefly, two conversations I had with a. Not. I can't remember the same student, actually, but two conversations I had recently with a student, and one of them asked me we'd come across a horse while we're driving, and she asked me, why did you get so excited? I'm like, how often do we get to practice overtaking horses? It's like, I get really excited if I see a horse or a cyclist, because we get to practice that.
And I think that I wonder how much that that mindset shifts from instructor as instructor, you know, because I. I used to be the instructor. That would be like, all right, cyclists, we've got to deal with these now. But now it's like an opportunity. It's like, oh, great, we get to practice this because we may never, ever come across a horse. Get on your lesson. So do you think we try and make the most of the. Those opportunities when they come up? You're absolutely right, Terry.
And particularly with those instructors out there who are delivering the honest truth, they'll know that there is a vulnerable road user truth within the suite of truths, the ten truth. One of them is. One of them is vulnerable road users. So actually, what a great opportunity if a. If a vulnerable road user is seen and encountered during a lesson to introduce that. That particular truth. Perfect opportunity.
Now, I was always taught with one of vulnerable road users, Terry, and I was always taught you can deal with them with four words. So all you need to remember is four words is how to deal with a vulnerable road user. Time, space, wide, slow. That's it. Give them time, give them space, pass them wide, pass them slow, job done.
Yeah. So I think having the opportunity to experience and deal with a vulnerable road user of any type as a. As a learner driver, as a. As a student, for an instructor, is fantastic, because there could be so many variables get thrown in. If they're holding back off a horse rider, for example, they're gonna have to deal with the motorist behind who's probably going to be getting A bit antsy and a little bit impatient. Well, actually, no, you wait for me.
I'm going to make my move when I'm good and ready and I know it's safe to do so. So actually they've then got to deal with the motorists behind or, you know, people often think of thunder road users as, you know, the person they've got to pass on the road.
Actually, what about the one on the other side of the road which might not directly impact them because they're well away from it on their side of the road, but what about the vehicles coming towards that vulnerable road user, suddenly find them encroaching onto your side of the road because they're passing them with time and space, wide and slow. So even ones on the other side of the road need to be considered as well.
I want to tell you this because it's not necessarily a vulnerable road user, but I think the example is very, very similar and very relevant. And again, another example of taking the opportunity. So, learner, we're driving down a railroad and there's a digger doing like 10 miles an hour in front of us and this is a 60 mile an hour speed limit and the digger's doing 10 to 15 and we've got a queue behind us and the car behind is another learner with an instructor in there.
And there wasn't a safe opportunity for us to overtake because there's like a brow of a hill and a bend and, you know, all that kind of stuff. The cars behind are getting really tatsy and they pulling out looking to try and overtake everyone, all that kind of stuff. But it was just such a great learning opportunity because I could have been a horse and rider, you know, it could have been a cyclist instead. And just such a great opportunity.
And I think again, there's a time I would have felt frustrated in that situation as an instructor, but now it's just like, this is awesome. How much better prepared is this student going to be? And then just a shout out to the instructor behind as well, that we're behind us, giving us thumbs up and I can't argue my learner thumbs up. It's like, well done for dealing with this sort of thing. So again, just how great are those opportunities for learners? They are.
These are the golden opportunities, Terry, without a doubt, agricultural vehicles in general. So agricultural and work vehicles in general are tend to be the ones that are traveling slowly on the road network and that they've got every right to be on the road network.
Now, interestingly, obviously a Lot of people know I'm from sort of in this, in the west country and I had a colleague who was following a. It was a tractor and trailer traveling fairly slowly on a, on an A road, but it was quite a windy A road. There was a lot of solid white line system to the point that actually you couldn't really overtake this tractor and trailer.
There were however, many opportunities for the tractor and trailer to have pulled in and allowed the traffic that had backed up behind. And we're talking considerable amount of traffic, we're talking 20, 30, 40 cars at the point that the actual, the officer got involved and stopped the traction trailer to pass and be able to continue the journey. And this thing was only doing 15 mile an hour like you said, 15 odd mile an hour.
The tractor driver actually got reported for driving out your care and attention because of the amount of vehicles they had allowed to stack up behind them and the fact they completely ignored the fact they had an opportunity to pull in and let that, let that traffic clear through and then continue their journey because they hadn't done that, they hadn't thought about it. They actually did get reported for driving HK retention. As far as I'm aware, that was a successful prosecution.
It's not about targeting agricultural workers and farmers, not in the slightest. But actually it's about if you are somebody who is driving a vehicle of that nature, think about what's going on behind you, okay?
Because actually all they're going to do by people taking chances on overtakes is they're going to be putting other people at risk because people are going to take chances, are going to go, I'm just going to, I can't be doing this tractor and trailer road maintenance vehicle, whatever it might be. So actually I'm going to go for an overtake where there clearly isn't an overtake. That's when serious and fatal collisions occur. When people go for an overtake that just isn't there.
And they've done it out of frustration because they've been stuck behind the slow moving vehicle for so long. But it sounds like your students did absolutely the right thing. Ignore what's going on behind you. Just ignore them. You do what you do. You drive your drive, don't drive anybody else's drive, you drive your drive at the end of the day, you drive your drive the way you want to drive it, the safest way possible.
And if that sat behind them until such time as they turn off, because a lot of agricultural vehicles, to be fair, they do fairly short journeys. They'll turn onto a main road, travel along it a bit and turn off it again. So actually a lot of agricultural vehicles and things like that are short journeys. There are some that are longer. Yes, it can be frustrating, but actually just sit back, it ain't worth it. Which exactly sounds exactly like what your student did and big thumbs up to them.
And I will just kind of touch on and say that I think what you said at the beginning is spot on. The idea of everyone needs tech responsibility. So, you know, wearing the bright clothing, having your lights on if you're a cyclist, that kind of stuff. But also I think as drivers and as instructors, again, it's taken the opportunity. So when we get. When we're at the pedestrian cross and the cyclist runs a red light, well, we've got two choices.
We can either your moan or we can talk about the opportunity with the students. In the same way, when we're at the lights and the car goes into the cycle box and stops there, we can either complain about them or we can use. Talk about the dangers and the opportunities. It's all a learning opportunity, particularly whilst somebody's learning to drive. All these things that the motorists around them are doing and people like cyclists are doing.
Now, we can't talk about cyclists too much because as I found out, very much to my detriment some years ago when I had the audacity, the audacity to put out a tweet on my police Twitter account when I'm still a serving officer, suggesting it was this time of year, suggesting that pedal cyclists might want to check their lights or work in and wear something bright to be seen.
I had the cycling lobby basically demanding my resignation because I was victim blaming because they shouldn't have to wear bright clothing to be seen. And bright clothing does absolutely nothing to enhance the visibility of a vulnerable road user. So we need to be very careful about using. I was told afterwards, ollie, don't use the C word in a tweet. And I said, I didn't use a C word. And they went, you said cyclist.
So I'm a cyclist myself, I have nothing against cyclists, but there is a cycling community out there who are extremely vocal about the motorist. So we're very careful about how we, how we advise cyclists. And like I say, bright clothing tried that and they demand my resignation. I wasn't going to apologize for passing road safety advice.
I think it's a lot, a lot, a lot easier to see somebody if they're wearing something bright or reflective, far, far easier than if they're dressed all in black from head to toe after dark. And again, black hoodie, hood up, black cycle bicycle, no lights, you just can't see them. End of. All we have to do is put a reflective vest on, a reflective band on something. Headlights will pick it up straight away. You'll see that movement, you'll know there's a hazard to be dealt with.
So I wouldn't want you to have the cyclists, the very protective and very animated cyclists out there that may stumble across this podcast to be demanding your resignation as they demanded mine a few years ago. I mean, resigning from this podcast, I have a bit lost free time, you know, so it'll all be good. But no, do you know what?
To a degree, I kind of understand where they come from because I've seen this argument as well in the we shouldn't have to wear bright clothes, shouldn't wear reflective stuff because other drivers crash into us when we do wear reflect. And we've all seen the videos of cyclists being hit in daytime when they've got bright claws on stuff. So I kind of get it to a degree. But then when I step back, it's just like. But it's making you more visible, it's making you more safe. Why?
But I think also maybe you're right, maybe this is the discussion we don't want to have. You know what? I have debated long and hard over to get someone from the cyclist brigade on this podcast. At some point. I think I will swallow my pride and do it at some point. But at the minute I'm too nervous. Is there, you know, again, Terry, don't get me wrong. I'm not anti cyclist at all. I, I ride myself. I ride, you know, I do a lot of riding myself and I thoroughly like going out on my bike.
But I'll make sure I'm seen. I will make sure when I'm riding my bike I am seen. And if I'm, if you survive. I used to ride to and from work all hours of the day and night. 2, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning. I'd ride home from work, 10 miles time from work along some country lanes. I had one of the brightest lights. I had, you know, reflective cover for my rucksack. I, you know, I think I had three, two or three rear lights, one strobing, one constant.
You know, I made, I made sure that if I was hit, there was no way that a motorist could say I didn't see him because they blinded me. Possibly. But you know, the cyclist blinded me and I Couldn't see them. But there was nobody they were going to say I couldn't see them. For me, it's the ones that go out with no lights, dressed in dark clothing after dark, where there's no other form of lighting and you physically cannot see them. They literally just blend into the background.
They're the ones that really need to put, you know, to learn about where some wear something, do something to make yourself more visible, do something. So, but I, I agree with you on, on the point around those that wear bright clothing, those that wear bright colored jackets and et cetera and still get knocked off. Yes. That is a motorist who clearly isn't looking at what's going on in front of them.
But don't tar all motorists with the same brush, just like we won't t all pedal cyclists with the pain brush. And, and just shared, it's about that shared road space. And, and just to finish up on that, I'll finish by annoying the drivers. You've annoyed the cyclist. I'll annoy the drivers in the. We're keeping it fair, Terry.
Yeah, I, I also think that even if the cyclist is, is in, you know, hooded black clothes, no lights, no reflection, it's still not an excuse because I think there's a bit of it for me that thinks we should only be driving for this. Well, but you will know this. You can only drive for the speed you can see. So if it's dark and you can't see once they're in your headlights, you're going to see them, but they're just making it harder so we have to drive a little bit more carefully.
That's kind of my thoughts. And it's not making an excuse for cyclists, it's not making an excuse for drivers. I just think that it comes back to that hierarchy road use. Again, we need to take that bit more responsibility if we know someone out there is more likely to be more dangerous or at risk. Maybe we just need to be a bit more careful sometimes. And you're absolutely, you're absolutely right, Terry. You know, it's a shared road space. We all hold responsibility.
And the hierarchy of road user says as car drivers, we have more responsibility for those to reduce the risk we pose to others. It's as simple as that. And I don't disagree, I don't fall out with that. I don't disagree with that. You know, and as motorists, we need to have that enhanced responsibility and think about what we're doing. You know, we need to be thinking, we need to Be looking much further ahead than maybe a lot of people do. A lot of people drive foot in front of their bonnet.
Look as far as you can see, you can pick up hazards so much quicker, so much quicker, so much earlier. And the earlier you pick up a hazard, the more time you got to plan and deal with it. It's not rocket science. Yes, I know I've had the benefit of having hundreds of hours of additional driver training to, you know, police advanced standard, advanced motorcyclist, advanced pursuit driver. I've had all that training. I've.
My, my mindset around driving is probably very different to an awful lot of people, but actually it's. None of it is rocket science at all. Look as far ahead as you can pick those hazards, you've got more time to deal with them, far less opportunity. You're going to come into conflict with another road user if you're dealing with these hazards properly. But that's a whole nother topic around hazard management, hazard perception, hazard awareness. Maybe another final.
Maybe one of my final thoughts for a future episode, Terry. Who knows? Yeah. Speaking of which, is there anything you want to touch on today before I wrap up? Because I feel like I've kept you for quite a while today. No, no, no, you absolutely haven't, Terry. It's been an absolute delight, as it always is, talking to you.
No, I think it's just about, like I say, it's about using this opportunity with the darker evenings for your students, for instructors to use this opportunity to teach their students about vulnerable road users. Go out and you're bound to see them. You're bound to see them. Countryside, cities, towns, wherever you're teaching, you're going to see vulnerable, vulnerable road users. Use the opportunity to teach your pupils all about them.
And if you're not an Honest truth driving instructor, head across to the website and become one. Just a little plug for us at the end there, Terry. Thank you 100%. And you know what? I am going to tell you this quick story because I'd forgotten for a minute that we've. You've. With the Honest Truth. I got that wrapped up with vulnerable rodents stuff.
You will like this little story because I had a student recently who we watched the Seat Belts Truth and was speaking about afterwards and he was telling me that he doesn't usually wear a seat belt when he's in his mate's car and he doesn't think he'll wear a seatbelt when he's passing driving by himself. And I wouldn't have found out if we hadn't watched that video because as soon as he got in my car, first thing he did was Bobby seatbelt on.
Because he knew that as an instructor I would want him to wear a seatbelt. So it's like a second nature thing to him when he's in my county. Parents. But it was honest enough to say that I probably will. And we've spoke about it and we'll speak about it more. And the thing I can say, he's now more likely to wear a seat belt. I can't guarantee he will, but I've moved him further along that spectrum. But for anyone listening, I just want to get that across the idea that we wouldn't have had that.
I wouldn't have found that out if we hadn't have watched the seat belts truth. And that's an amazing story. Terry and I love stories like that. I think they're fantastic. Because the honest truth is all about behavior change and it's about moving people along that behavior change model. You are moving him, that student along the behavior change model, which is exactly what we're here for. Exactly the entire aim and objective of what we're here for.
And you know, and it may well be that before that student goes to test and they no longer have you sat next to them as their voice of reason, you might want to revisit the Just because you've completed a truth doesn't mean say that you can't revisit it. You might want to revisit the seat belt truth and say we're just going to revisit this again. What are your thoughts on it now? Now you've had time to think about it.
Let's have a look at this again and let's see whether you have your thoughts changed at all. A suggestion. And again, any of the instructors out there who've maybe got a student who's in a similar position or sort of similar viewpoint about one of the other truths. Revisit it. Get them to think about it. Get them to think about the risks, the risks and consequences of their decision making. Even if it's once they pass their test, what's the risk of not wearing a seatbelt?
What do you think the risk is? You know, why aren't you going to wear a seatbelt? What's your reason for not wearing a seatbelt? You know, and actually, and like you say, like you will have done. Tariq, Tease out of them and challenge in a very, in a very constructive way, in a very supportive way. Challenge. Okay, so you're not going to wear a seatbelt. Why are you going to wear a seatbelt? What are the risks not wearing a seatbelt?
Have you any idea what happens to a body when it hits a. You know, if an airbag goes off and you're. You're still traveling forwards or you're a passenger in a car and you know you're not wearing a seat belt and the car starts to rotate because let's be fair, collisions are really head on. They usually corner to corner which causes rotation or rollover. What happens, what happens to all washing in a washing machine when this, when the. When the spin cycle's on all gets thrown to the outside.
It's all kept in the washing machine. It's got a big steel drum. Car's not quite the same. You've got windows all around the car. Guarantee in a rotation in a car or a car rollover, if you're not running a seat belt, you will go out of one of the windows. That is something that once you're halfway out the window it's a bit tricky to then regret having not put your seat belt on. Anyway, sorry Terry, I've got, I've got on my soapbox now.
I shall get off my soapbox for a moment and thank you very much for having me as usual. Yes, no, always a pleasure speaking to you and enjoy the rest of your trip. And as you mentioned earlier, if anyone can guess where Ollie is, the comments are open. Terry, I shall speak to you. I have every intention of being back our good old Blighty next time we speak is the intention. Otherwise if you see this wall, you know I'm still stuck here.