Regulations related to the safety of vehicles have significantly improved the situation in terms of saving many lives; however, I wonder how these trade-offs are perceived by people.
From the economic point of view, one obvious instrument which works here is incentives. As for the safety regulations requiring airbags, crumple zones, and camera backup, such requirements result in an increase in production costs, which, in turn, get reflected in a rise in the cost of purchasing cars. On the other hand, due to increased safety levels of cars, the 'costs' of using cars will be reduced – fewer accidents and injuries, and the probability of dying will become lower. As a consequence, drivers may start driving more often or even increase risks (a phenomenon which is known as risk compensation).
What would happen, for example, if there were no such regulations at all? In this case, cars would become less expensive, yet much more hazardous. Will people react and drive less carefully or, on the contrary, fatalities will grow substantially in such a case?
Basically what I'm asking is, are safety regulations beneficial in most cases due to the number of lives which were saved, or does something change this picture?