I agree, that's exactly the societal question:

The core purpose of regulation is to create better lives for society as a whole.

Human lives being lost is usually considered negative for a society, but just a number in economics for insurances, car-companies, etc.

It's an annoying hindrance for companies to be forced into contributing to the well-being of society, they prefer to decide on that by themselves.

Meanwhile, governments suck at communication with their citizens, and their message is drowned by companies who do marketing every day. So the growing assumption also fueled by companies is that we could have much better stuff if the market wouldn't be regulated.

And yeah, there is surely regulation which should be reviewed, but I don't believe this should be done by putting a price on a human life.

I don't think we would have bike helmets on the street and seatbelts in cars if they wouldn't have been required by regulation, driving down the cost of development and production and making them available for everybody. Even vice-versa: If I'm involved in a car-accident, I would also want the OTHER party to have a seatbelt or a helmet.

Looking how "disruptive companies" find ways to do stupid shit because it's not properly regulated (e.g. skipping mechanical door-handles in car-backseats, creating "digital markets" without equal competition,...) tells me that ESPECIALLY these days empowering regulators to make good decisions and communicate better on them would be more important than having "cheaper newer cars".

But that's just my view...