THINK! launches ‘Travel Like You Know Them’ campaign

08.42 | 12 July 2022 | | 4 comments


The THINK! team has launched the next phase of its campaign to promote the recent changes to the Highway Code, looking to foster mutual respect between all road users.

The ‘Travel Like You Know Them’ campaign offers a snapshot into the lives of people who use the roads, aiming to help people see beyond the mode of transport and improve understanding of how others see and use the road.

It has an emphasis on motorists and those who have a greater responsibility to reduce the risk they may pose to others, as per the Highway Code’s new hierarchy of road users.

The campaign runs until late August and comprises two films – 30 and 15 seconds in length – as well as a radio advert.

Baroness Vere, roads minister, said: “People tend to see cycles, lorries and cars on the roads rather than thinking of the person using them – but it could be your family member, your friend or your colleague.

“We have some of the safest roads in the world but I am determined to make them even safer, particularly as more people choose to walk, cycle and ride for their journeys.

“This campaign encourages everyone to see the person behind the wheel or handlebars, to build more understanding of others on the road, and help keep everyone safe.”

On 29 January, the DfT updated the Highway Code in a bid to improve road safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.

The changes include:

  • a clear hierarchy of road users ensuring the greatest responsibility sits with those who do can do the greatest harm
  • strengthening pedestrian priority on pavements and at crossings 
  • establishing guidance on safe passing distances and speeds and 
  • ensuring cyclists have priorities at junctions when travelling straight ahead

A THINK! survey suggests 87% are already aware of the changes.



Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    I want to say how much I agree with Fraser Andrew’s comment. (If I had noticed it earlier I would have responded immediately).
    I absolutely agree that cyclists should be prosecuted for cycling illegally on footways. I too am constantly sworn at and threatened by cyclists when I simply tell them that it is illegal to cycle on pavements. They even cycle on pavements next to the cycle lanes and very few have bike lights!

    I am a disabled pensioner and am fearful everytime I go out. The repeated near misses plus the abuse have destroyed the confidence of disabled/vulnerable pedestrians.

    I agree with what Fraser says about the blue sign “Diagram 956 (S3‐2‐29) Route for use by pedal cycles and pedestrians only” – however there should be no shared s paces whatsoever.

    There are in fact many people campaigning to reclaim footways (pavements) for pedestrians. Sarah Gayton – the campaign lead for the NFBUK (National Federation of the Blind UK) is campaigns tirelessly. See link:

    The Government and local Councils prefer to ignore those of us who speak out, but we will not be silenced!

    Christina Young, Liverpool
    Agree (2) | Disagree (0)

    I have just watched a small video travel like you know them and I really liked it.

    Thank you. I hope more people travel like they know the people around them and respect them.

    Unfortunately in my area there are daily reminders of bad drivers, rude people and people just not bothered about anyone but themselves getting where they need to be FAST and drivers who drive for fun accelerating wildly, making the engines sound loud with big bangs, all in the name of fun.

    Walking on the pavement the other day a car came to park mounted the curb behind me onto the pavement – really scared me. What was he in a rush for? Picking his kid up.

    To not feel safe driving or walking is a sorry state.

    Tabbi, Lancashire
    Agree (2) | Disagree (0)

    As an ADI unfortunately I cannot agree with “A THINK! survey suggests 87% are already aware of the changes”.

    My personal finding though not documented is that this should be more like 90%, the public are not aware of the new rule changes, I can state that at least 90% of my new learners average age 20, have never heard of the Highway code rules H1, H2″, & H3.

    John Geoffrey Whale, WOLVERHAMPTON
    Agree (10) | Disagree (0)

    I am not sure that Baroness Vere is right in what she says. It may depend on one’s perspective, but I guess she has to be given something to say.
    As to the clear hierarchy of road users, that needs to be followed through completely. Why, for instance, does the blue sign “Diagram 956 (S3‐2‐29) Route for use by pedal cycles and pedestrians only” cycle above the pedestrian? Surely, this is the wrong “message” entirely, and there is no doubt that pedestrians suffer, as a result. Placing the pedestrian above the cycle (and the horsemen the other case) might go some way to “strengthening pedestrian priority”. Prosecuting the many now cycling on footways illegally might help further.
    Guidance on passing distances and speeds might make some difference, but how one can “ensure” that cyclists have priorities (sic) at junctions when travelling straight ahead is beyond me – in fact I’m not entirely sure what it means. Traffic on a through road already has priority at “priority” junctions. Measures to emphasise the possibility of cyclists being amongst that traffic – and (naturally) likely to be overlooked – are surely within the design realm.
    What concerns me most (and there are plenty examples of it) is the injustice that may result from the “hierarchy” approach, which, combined with the rather less than intelligent substitution of “collision” for road traffic accident, is a recipe for that. In passing, would anyone like to join me in my one-man campaign to reclaim footways for pedestrians? I’m fed up being rundown and sworn at by cyclists – especially the rapidly increasing number of those cycling on foorways illegally. Tells you something about the effectiveness on the Highway Code, though, does it not?

    Fraser Andrew, STIRLING
    Agree (5) | Disagree (4)

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.