Here in Oz we recently had a truck driver who was using his mobile phone while doing 120km and no hands on the steering wheel for at least 500m at one point... for much of the time he wasn't even looking ahead at the road, nor was he wearing a seatbelt. Had he caused an accident he would have been in all sorts of trouble.. like up to his neck in it.
This was shown on one of our news programmes... and when they tried to interview him later he showed absolutely no remorse or consideration whatsoever for his crimes. Yes, dangerous/cuplable driving can be a crime here... not just a traffic offense. Instead he just laughed it off and tried to play dumb. Now he is someone I would have thrown the book at... loss of license for 3 years and a prison term of at least 6 months. According to the news investigator all he got was a $600 fine. Not good enough! No wonder there are so many idiots on the road... there is no legal disincentive to be otherwise.
The $600 fine was probably viewed as a cost of doing business, well worth it. Legal disincentives do very little when the cost is relatively small. I remember when I was finishing Nursing Home Administrator Certification (yes, I'm certifiable) class and I met the son of the owner of one of the big chains. He drove to class along the thruway at 40-50% above the speed limit (90 MPH). He told us he gets tickets about half the time. But he is OK with that, because the amount is so small and his time is worth it. His tickets cost more that I had in mad(discretionary) money for a month. He is rich, the tickets are mere mosquito bites to him, where to me it would be like losing a leg for a month. In short, he could buy the right to speed, whist I could not afford to. Corporations do the same thing, risking the fine is worth it, a cost of doing business, but not a true dis-incentive. No remorse for having placed others at risk, or 'externalizing' a cost center to increase the bottom line this quarter is sop, and in our DNA. Me, and my group matter.
Sad. We are still, basically, tribal creatures, our inheritance based on the fittest surviving. Who do we instinctively 'treat' as valuable? Close blood relatives; (yes, someone to argue with is valuable 
). Who is next in value? The group I belong to and get my needs for identity and belonging to met. What about everyone else? They are creatures to be used to better my own group's / family's [security, status, wealth, power, etc.]. The tribal glasses through which most primates, and humans, view the world around us presents most other people as a 'them' or worse, as an 'it.' (Beuber, I and Thou). Most people don't care because we/they are hardwired not to. Oh, we have created some fairly effective veneer to paste over this very effective, if archaic survival tactic. I'm glad we have. But more is needed.
Basically, until we change our inheritance at a very basic level, or truly convince everyone that we belong to the same group - we will continue to treat others outside our clan as objects to be used. Like the School age girls abducted, imprisoned, repeatedly raped, and now offered for sale. Or buying clothes and shoes made with slave labor in China and in some third world countries. Or inexpensive produce picked by a sub-class of 'guest workers.' I like what one of the Scandinavian countries does with speeding tickets. The fine is not a set amount, but is based as a percentage of the perp's net worth, or annual income, or what have you. Caught speeding, that will be $500,000 dollars. Ouch. There, Mr speeder from my class would be fined 1,000s of dollars, not 80$. The law would then also really apply to him. People generally don't comply because its the civil thing to do, but they will comply if their group makes compliance a part of belonging, or if the cost is great enough to make the crime not worth doing. IMHO.
