The punishment would be in the vein of the Singapore method, i.e. wonks on a violator's hindquarters with a brine-soaked rattan cane. One could assume this disciplinary perspective would be maximally effective as Singapore boosts one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Tier 3: Pre-emptive Force

One of the core tenets of the Bush doctrine is "anticipatory self-defense" or pre-emptive force. The idea is that in order to prevent a terrorist attack it is necessary to strike at the enemy before he/she/it can organize, coordinate, and/or execute an attack on the U.S. (Beres, 2005).

In order to prevent future accidents, it's necessary to adopt the disciplinary perspective of pre-emption. In short, we need to be proactive. We need to go after future violators. Now, unfortunately we don't have oracles vis a vis Minority Report, but what we can do is train an elite force of community watchdogs who will monitor bike paths and areas heavily trafficked by both bicyclists to look for non-compliance or non-optimal behavior. Punishment for non-optimal behavior will be meted out accordingly (rattan cane, non-soaked).

Discussion

I strongly believe that these three disciplinary perspectives could be integrated to produce a society not unlike the one Winston Smith lived in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. And that's really the point of this satirical examination of disciplinary perspectives, to show how...

However, many would suggest that the costs of implementing these particular disciplinary perspectives would be too high.
That said, and this is where perhaps the irony kicks in, the U.S. employs many of the aforementioned disciplinary perspectives to lead the free world. For example, to take one of the less obvious examples, one might say that corporeal punishment is illegal in the U.S., but it isn't. In fact, all 50 states permit corporeal punishment at one's home. And in roughly 20 States, it's still legal for schools to administer forms of corporeal punishment.

The key then, and to circle back to the bicycle problems, is to decide how much freedom the community is willing to give up to ensure optimal safety. And the answer to this question varies from country to country, state to state, town to town, and house to house.

Works Cited

Beres, L.B. (2005, July 24). Anticipatory Self-Defense. The Washington Times.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jul/24/20050724-101302-5685r/