A PeaceDNA Street-Mediation Success Story
Two Strangers, One Close Call
Luis:
“I was riding my bicycle home from work when a car began backing out of a parking space. I swerved to avoid it, lost my balance, and fell. My backpack hit the ground, my bicycle handlebar struck the car’s mirror, and everything inside me went from calm to angry in a second.
I stood up and shouted at the driver”:
“What’s wrong with you? You could have killed me!”
The driver got out of her car.
Tasha:
“I heard a loud bang against my mirror and immediately stopped. When I stepped out, the bicyclist was already yelling at me. I had checked behind my car before moving. From my perspective, he appeared suddenly and was riding too close to the parked cars.
I felt frightened and accused. I answered:
“Maybe you should learn how to ride instead of blaming me!”
We were strangers, standing beside a bicycle and a damaged car mirror, accusing each other in front of several people. That was when Devon approached us.
The Street Mediator Steps In
(Devon is his name.)
Devon did not rush between us or grab either person. He remained several feet away and asked:
“Is anyone injured or in immediate danger?”
I checked my arms and legs. My knee hurt, but I could stand and move it.
“I don’t think I’m injured.”
Tasha said she was not hurt.
Devon asked whether we wanted emergency services or medical help. We both said no.
Then he explained:
“I’m a street mediator. If both of you are willing, I can help slow this down so each person can explain what happened and decide what to do next. I won’t decide who is right or force an agreement.”
I was still angry, but I wanted Tasha to understand how close the car had felt.
“I’m willing.”
(Tasha)
I wanted to leave, but my side mirror was hanging loose. I also did not want the argument to become worse. Sure, “I’ll try.”
Devon asked us to stand on the sidewalk, away from moving traffic. That simple change made the situation feel less dangerous.
Establishing the Conditions
Devon explained that peaceful dialogue required certain Conditions. We each needed to be willing, reasonably calm, free to speak, and able to listen without insults or threats. No dis-respect of any kind is allowed. He asked me directly:
“Are you willing to explain your Conflict Position, listen while Tasha explains hers, and speak respectfully?”
I answered aloud:
“Yes. I am willing to explain my Position, listen, and speak respectfully.”
(Tasha)
Then Devon asked me the same question.
“Yes. I am willing to participate peacefully and speak respectfully.”
Saying it aloud felt more serious than simply nodding. We both heard the commitment. Neither of us could pretend we had not made it.
Devon explained one more rule:
“If either person uses a FOUL—an insult, accusation, threat, hostile judgment, or put-down—I will stop the process. We will return to Conditions and continue only if both of you reaffirm your commitment aloud.”
We both agreed.
My Conflict Position
(Luis)
Devon invited me to speak first. He asked Tasha to listen without interrupting.
“What happened from your point of view?”
I started to say that Tasha had almost run over me, but Devon helped me separate what I observed from what I believed. He asked Fact questions and added Belief questions.
I explained:
“I was riding beside the parked cars. Her reverse lights came on, and the car moved backward. I swerved right, fell, and my handlebar struck her mirror.”
Devon asked:
“Are you saying you saw the reverse lights and then saw the car moving into your path?”
“Yes.”
That question showed me he understood what I had seen. He then asked how I felt.
“I was terrified when the car moved. After I fell, I felt angry and embarrassed because people were watching.”
Devon rephrased:
“Are you saying the close call frightened you, and the fall in front of others left you feeling angry and embarrassed?”
“Yes.”
Then he asked what I believed the experience meant.
“I believed she had not looked carefully before backing out. I thought she didn’t care that she could have hurt me.”
Devon did not treat my Belief as a proven Fact. He checked my meaning:
“Are you saying you believed Tasha had not seen you and that her response afterward made you feel that your safety did not matter to her?”
I had not put it together that way before, but it accurately reflected what I had already expressed.
“Yes. That’s what upset me most.”
Hearing my Conflict Position reflected back gave me a new perspective on my own anger. I was not upset only about the bicycle or the fall. I wanted my fear and safety to be taken seriously.
A FOUL Stops the Process
(Tasha)
When it was my turn, I began with another attack:
“He was flying down the street like an idiot.”
Devon stopped me immediately.
“We need to pause. ‘Like an idiot’ is a FOUL. It judges Luis instead of describing what you observed.”
I felt corrected and started to defend myself, but Devon remained calm.
“Tasha, are you saying you believed Luis was riding too fast for the space available?”
“Yes. That’s what I meant.”
Devon had removed the insult without erasing my concern.
Then he returned both of us to Conditions.
He asked me:
“Are you still willing to continue peacefully, describe your own Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs, and speak respectfully?”
I answered aloud:
“Yes. I am willing to continue peacefully and speak respectfully.”
(Luis) “Yes”
Devon then turned to me.
“Are you still willing to listen without responding with another FOUL?”
Part of me wanted to say that Tasha had insulted me first. Instead, I remembered what I had already promised.
“Yes. I am willing to listen and remain respectful.”
Only after both of us reaffirmed the Conditions aloud did Devon continue.
Tasha’s Conflict Position
(Tasha)
I began again.
“I checked both mirrors and looked through the rear window before moving. I did not see Luis. I began backing out slowly, heard a shout, and stopped. Then I heard something hit my mirror.”
Devon rephrased:
“Are you saying you looked before moving, did not see Luis, and stopped when you heard him shout?”
“Yes.”
He asked how I felt.
“At first I was startled. Then I became frightened when he shouted that I could have killed him. I felt like he was accusing me of deliberately risking his life.”
Devon checked that meaning:
“Are you saying the collision frightened you, and Luis’s words left you feeling accused of something you did not intend?”
“Yes.”
Then he asked about my Beliefs.
“I believed he was riding too close to the cars and moving faster than he realized. I also believed he blamed me before checking whether I was okay.”
Devon rephrased:
“Are you saying you accept that the car moved into his path, but you believe his speed and distance from the parked cars also contributed to the close call?”
“Yes.”
Hearing it that way changed something for me. I could recognize that my car had entered his path without agreeing that I alone caused everything.
Listening to Each Other
(Luis)
Devon asked me to explain Tasha’s Position without arguing against it.
I said:
“Are you saying you looked before backing up, didn’t see me, and stopped when you heard me shout?”
“Yes.”
Then I tried another:
“And you felt frightened and accused because you believed I was saying you almost hit me on purpose?”
“Yes.”
I still believed she should have seen me. But for the first time, I understood that she had been frightened too.
(Tasha)
Devon asked me to reflect Luis’s Position.
“Are you saying the car seemed to move into your path suddenly, and you felt frightened because you believed I had not seen you?”
“Yes.”
I continued:
“And when I insulted your riding, you believed I didn’t care whether you had been hurt?”
Luis paused.
“Yes.”
That answer was difficult to hear. I had been focused on defending myself and protecting my car. I had not asked whether he was okay.
I turned toward him.
“I’m sorry I didn’t ask if you were hurt.”
The Shared Problem
(Luis)
Devon helped us identify what we agreed had happened:
- Tasha looked before backing out but did not see me.
- Her car began moving into my path.
- I swerved, fell, and struck the mirror.
- Neither person suffered an obvious serious injury.
- The mirror and my backpack were damaged.
- We both felt frightened.
- We both used FOULs after the close call.
- Neither of us intended the collision.
Our Beliefs about speed, distance, and responsibility were still different. PeaceDNA did not require those differences to disappear.
The shared Conflict Problem had become clearer: there had been a dangerous close call, minor damage, poor visibility, and an angry exchange between two frightened strangers.
Exploring a Remedy
(Tasha)
Devon asked:
“What do you want now to improve the situation peacefully?”
I answered:
“I want to inspect the mirror and exchange contact information in case it needs repair. I also want Luis to acknowledge that riding beside parked cars carries a risk.”
Devon checked my meaning:
“Are you saying you want a practical way to handle the damage and recognition that both people had safety responsibilities?”
“Yes.”
(Luis)
I said:
“I want Tasha to acknowledge that a driver must keep checking while backing out—not just before moving. I also want to photograph the scene and my damaged backpack.”
Devon rephrased:
“Are you saying you want the physical evidence preserved and recognition that conditions can change after a driver first looks?”
“Yes.”
That rephrasing did not tell us what to believe. It helped us hear that both of us wanted responsibility, safety, and a fair record of what happened.
Our Actions
(Tasha)
Devon asked what I was willing to do.
I agreed to:
- Exchange contact and insurance information
- Allow photographs of the car, bicycle, backpack, and location
- Have the mirror inspected before making a repair claim
- Avoid making accusations about Luis’s intention or character
- Check continuously—not only once—when backing into a bike lane or street
(Luis)
I agreed to:
- Exchange my contact information
- Allow photographs of my bicycle and backpack
- Have my knee checked if the pain continued
- Ride farther from parked cars when possible
- Avoid claiming that Tasha intended to endanger me
- Discuss any repair costs after we had reliable information
Neither of us admitted full legal responsibility. We did not need to settle every disputed Fact on the sidewalk, so we created a practical plan for what would happen next.
Our Peace Agreement
(Luis)
Devon read the agreement aloud and asked whether I understood and accepted it voluntarily.
“Yes.”
(Tasha)
He asked me the same question.
“Yes.”
Then Devon asked:
“Does either person believe an important part of the Problem or Remedy has been left out?”
We both said no.
Before leaving, I looked at Luis and said:
“I’m sorry I called you an idiot. I was scared and defensive.”
(Luis)
I answered:
“I’m sorry I accused you of not caring whether I lived. I was scared too.”
We did not leave as friends. We did not agree about every detail. But we left without threats, another argument, or police intervention. We understood each other better and had a plan for dealing with the damage.
That was enough to call the mediation a success.
What PeaceDNA Changed
(Luis)
PeaceDNA helped me separate what I saw from what I assumed. I saw the car move backward. I felt terrified. I believed Tasha had not looked and did not care about my safety.
My fear was real, but my Belief about her concern was not the same as a proven Fact.
(Tasha)
PeaceDNA helped me recognize that my insult was covering fear and defensiveness. When the mediator translated the FOUL into a question, I could express my concern without attacking Luis.
Rephrasing also helped me hear my own Position more clearly. It did not insert a new idea or pressure me to agree. It reorganized what I had already said so its meaning became easier to recognize.
Both of Us
- The mediator did not decide the outcome. He protected the process.
- When a FOUL appeared, he stopped us. We returned to Conditions and reaffirmed aloud that we were willing to continue peacefully and respectfully.
- Kanji Listening helped each of us hear the other person’s Conflict Position.
- Rephrase for Yes confirmed understanding.
- Guiding Questions uncovered missing Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs.
- Remedy changed our Wants into voluntary Actions.
- PeaceDNA did not make us agree about everything.
- It helped two frightened strangers understand the same Problem well enough to leave peacefully with a workable agreement.
Four-Perspective Red-Team Review
1. Teacher and General Reader
Analysis: Alternating first-person accounts allow readers to experience how the same event can produce two different Conflict Positions…experiences.
Risk tested: Frequent changes in viewpoint could make the sequence difficult to follow.
Response: Each shift is labeled by the speaker’s name, while the mediation continues in chronological order through Conditions, Conflict Positions, and Remedy.
2. Conflict-Resolution Practitioner
Analysis: The mediator protects the process without deciding legal responsibility or imposing a solution.
Risk tested: Rephrasing to provide “new perspective” could introduce the mediator’s own interpretation.
Response: Each rephrasing remains limited to meaning already expressed by the disputant. The new perspective comes from hearing that meaning organized and reflected—not from adding new Facts, Feelings, motives, or judgments.
3. Trauma-Informed Safety Reviewer
Analysis: The mediator checks for injuries and immediate danger before beginning dialogue.
Risk tested: Street mediation may be inappropriate when there is serious injury, violence, intoxication, weapons, blocked movement, coercion, or a dangerous power difference.
Response: The story begins with a safety assessment and voluntary participation. Emergency assistance, distance, or outside help would take priority if safe Conditions did not exist.
4. Skeptic
Analysis: The outcome succeeds without requiring friendship, full agreement, or an admission of legal fault.
Risk tested: Real strangers may refuse mediation or fail to honor their spoken commitment.
Response: PeaceDNA cannot compel cooperation. The story demonstrates what can happen when both people freely reaffirm the Conditions and support their words with respectful behavior.
Back to top
Comment