NARRATOR: Let’s learn how each of these drivers could have used DTA’s responsible driving strategies to minimize their risk of becoming involved in this crash.

Our first step in this process is to recognize that both Brian and Doug found themselves caught in a "collision trap," since both drivers were surrounded by multiple hazards that left them with no means of escape. But what is a collision trap?

The first characteristic of a collision trap is that you are presented with the problem of handling two or more hazards at the same time.

Second, a collision trap presents you with a tempting slot between the hazards, which unfortunately is typically controlled by the actions of others.

Third, a collision trap allows no space for escape once the trap is sprung.

Before you can be successful at avoiding collision traps, you must first learn how to identify them. One key method of spotting collision traps is to use the responsible driving strategy called "separate." While you are driving, you separate potential risks or threats and prioritize them according to the level of danger they represent.

Obviously, you want to be able to deal with the most immediate threat as quickly as possible. If you reduce your speed, you will find that it is usually much easier to separate risks so that you can respond to each threat with the most appropriate (and safest) driving maneuver.

Sometimes when you are separating, you might identify two or more risks that must be dealt with at the same time. When this happens, you must use the responsible driving strategy known as "compromise." This means giving up some of your time or space in order to avoid a collision.

When you compromise time, you typically have to slow down to avoid contact with one or more hazards, and when you compromise space, you might have to move outside of your lane for a short distance.

Let’s examine a few "real world" driving scenarios to see how a driver would put the strategies of separate and compromise to good use.

So as you continue traveling down this residential street what do you identify? What do you predict? What’s your decision? Accelerate, maintain your present speed, or reduce speed?

The responsible decision here is to reduce speed. You should predict that if you continue to travel at your present speed, your vehicle, the oncoming red car, and the pedestrians near the truck will be coming together at the same time, and a trap could be sprung on you.

The oncoming car could claim this slot at the same time. What if a door on one of the trucks were to swing open, or one of the pedestrians were to walk out into your lane of travel? Could you slow in time?

You avoid springing a trap by reducing your speed early to minimize the threat of conflict, and you separate risks so that you can handle each of them one at a time.

Reducing speed here means that you will be compromising time, but the Adult driver recognizes that it’s better to be delayed than to be involved in a crash.

Try another situation. What do you identify? What do you predict? What’s your decision?

Is your decision to maintain speed and lane position, stop and let the oncoming vehicle pass, or slow and ease right?

Sure, stopping would be a solution; however, slowing and easing right at a safe distance behind the jogger is a more reasonable compromise in this situation. The key here is to avoid the game of "Me First" that comes from your Child Attitude State, which would force the pedestrian and the oncoming vehicle to fend for themselves.

This is a situation in which you must set priorities and separate all the risks. The pedestrian should be the most pressing concern since he is unprotected and unpredictable, and the safest approach here is to stay behind him until the other hazards have been dealt with.

Slowing and easing right may be a compromise, but it puts as much space as possible between you and the jogger and indicates to the other driver approaching the narrow area that you are allowing them to pass first.

How about this situation? Is your decision to stop or maintain speed and pass to the left?

Stopping gives you the safest perspective from which to separate all the possible risks, since you are unsure what the drivers in front of you are planning to do. While you are stopped, you can predict the worst about what either car might do, and use this prediction as a basis for deciding whether you should remain stopped or proceed to pass.

Did you predict that the driver might get out of the car too? If you had simply maintained your original speed and passed immediately, your decision might have resulted in a collision with a pedestrian or another vehicle.

Your decision to compromise here means that you have to wait a few extra seconds before continuing down the road, but isn’t that better than risking a potential collision?

Now that we have had some practice identifying collision traps and using the techniques of separate and compromise, let’s revisit the driving scene we studied earlier, "The Driver Who Wouldn’t Compromise," to learn how Doug and Brian could have used these techniques to avoid the crash.

You might recall that Brian had been driving the speed limit. He wasn’t violating any traffic laws or driving in an unsafe manner, but he still could have done more to possibly avoid getting caught in a collision trap.

Driving by the IPDE process, Brian would have scanned the intersection ahead and identified two potential hazards: 1) the pedestrian, Shelby, approaching the side street; and 2) Doug’s vehicle in the oncoming lane with its turn signal on.

If Brian had been scanning closely, he might have also identified a third potential hazard – the truck that was closely following Doug’s vehicle. The presence of two or more hazards was Brian’s first clue that a collision trap might be forming.

Next, using IPDE, Brian would have predicted the worst, which would be that Shelby would begin crossing as Doug’s car turned left onto the side street, forcing Doug to stop in the road.

If Brian had made this prediction, he would have spotted the collision trap, since the slot he intended to use would be controlled by Doug’s vehicle, leaving Brian with no space for escape.

Based on his predictions, Brian’s decision would have been to slow a bit or use a "brake cover," which is when you hover your foot over the brake pedal without applying pressure to stop quicker if needed. Slowing down or using a brake cover would have given Brian more time to execute a quick braking maneuver and stop short of Doug’s vehicle.

Just like Brian, Doug could have used the same clues in his driving environment to spot the potential hazards and recognize that a collision trap was forming. Unfortunately, Doug wasn’t able to focus on those critical hazards because he was distracted by the discouraging news he had received from his supervisor earlier in the day.

Since his mind was preoccupied by his employment situation and the fact that he was running late to pick up his son, Doug’s Adult Attitude State was not in control of his driving, so his use of IPDE and other defensive driving strategies was "non-functional." Despite the presence of multiple hazards, Doug panicked and made an impulsive decision to turn left, which came from his Child Attitude State.

This crash illustrates the need for a driver to not allow the Adult Attitude State to be overcome by emotions and distractions relating to stress in the workplace or in one’s personal life.

If Doug’s Adult had been in control, he would have carefully conducted a 12-second search of the driving environment where he planned to make his left turn. Scanning and searching the intersection ahead, he would have identified three potential hazards: 1) the truck behind him; 2) the pedestrian on the corner; and 3) Brian’s car in the oncoming lane.

By slowing down, Doug would have had more time to separate these risks and decide how best to handle each one. Doug could have chosen to compromise his time by slowing to a stop and preparing to make his left turn after Brian and Shelby had passed through the intersection.

Alternatively, Doug could have continued through the intersection and turned at another location farther down the road. Either of these Adult decisions would have enabled Doug to avoid the collision and continue on to pick up his son at baseball practice without incident.

Let’s get in some practice recognizing which Attitude State is controlling the behavior of these drivers.

BOB: You’d think a guy like him ought to know better. I mean, it’s not like he is just learning how to drive. I was driving down the road, going about thirty-five, when this person, oblivious to what’s going on around him, backs out of his driveway right in front of me! You know, he should have waited. I had the right of way! And to make matters worse, he stops dead in the center of the road right in front of me! Now he says it’s my fault. I sure hope that taught him a lesson about looking around before he backs out of his driveway the next time!

NARRATOR: Which Attitude State is controlling this man’s behavior? Parent? Adult? or Child?

That’s right. From our earlier discussions, you probably recognized the clues to this man’s Parent Attitude State. "Ought," "should," and "taught him a lesson" are expressions that reveal how this man was hooked by his critical, punishing Parent. He was more concerned about who had the right-of-way than predicting possible trouble, and taking steps to avoid it.

Here’s another example. See if you can recognize which Attitude State is controlling her behavior.

SUSAN: So I was driving home yesterday from work and traffic was terrible! So I get to the intersection outside of my neighborhood, and around that time there was about ten cars backed up to that stop sign on my side. So I waited patiently for my turn to turn left into the subdivision. So I look across the street and I see that it’s their turn to go next. So I turn on my blinker and I move forward so that I could turn left as soon as they clear the intersection. So this car decides to go right behind him. I waited just like everybody else, and it was my turn to go. Why should she go before me? And I know that she saw me. She thinks that she can do whatever she wants and she doesn’t care! But, there’s no way I am going to let her go before me! So I gun it and I have to slam on my brakes! We were this close to a crash. But it was my turn to go, what did she expect?

NARRATOR: Which Attitude State is controlling this woman? Her Parent, her Adult, or her Child?

Comments like "There’s no way I am going to let her go before me" are tip-offs to the aggressive, impulsive Child Attitude State in action.

Both of these drivers were competing at the highest level in the Child game of "Me First," which occurs frequently at intersections. Would it really have made that much of a difference if either driver had let the other one go first?

The Adult driver recognizes the futility of always trying to "lead the pack." After all, being in second place is always preferable to getting into a crash.

Examining "The Driver Who Wouldn’t Compromise," we’ve learned to identify collision traps that can lock us into a crash situation. We’ve seen that to keep the trap from being sprung, and to keep an isolated position in traffic, we must separate the multiple risks that so often turn up when we drive.

Separating the risks often requires us to make reasonable compromises of space and time behind the wheel. Remember that our attitude toward driving situations will control our behavior.

It is important that you deal with intersections and all other traffic environments in a logical, rational way. Don’t let your emotions, workplace stress, or other drivers’ actions prevent you from operating in your Adult Attitude State.

If you can keep your Adult in control, you will be a much safer driver who is prepared for nearly any type of traffic situation.