It’s a risk/cost proposition: Early car manufacturers could have easily added safety features if the free market pressured them to do it, but that would drive up the cost of the car for all. Some people didn’t want a more expensive car, and were willing to accept a higher risk for a lower cost vehicle. Volvo had safety belts in the '50s, but you didn’t see people flocking to import or buy them. Reason: cost. If the public at large had clamored for additional safety features, manufacturers would have eventually included them to outsell their competitors.
So, Nader got a bunch of citizens and politicians worked up to the point where they made it <dredd> THE LAW </dredd> to have these safety features included, which increased the cost of the car (however insignificantly). This trend of “nanny state”, where citizens gladly hand over freedoms for more perceived safety, continues in full force today.
I think there are some good laws; the ones which help prevent person A from killing person B and so on. However, the number of “let’s make sure person A can not pay attention to life and still have a fair chance of not dying” laws have spiraled out of control.
IMO, life should be more dangerous. People might pay more attention to the !@#% that matters, and not to Facebook/American Idol/TV/Pokemon/etc.
(edit: I’ve been driving a car since I was 14, have had two minor bumper-scratching incidents due to ice as a teenager before I learned, never had a speeding ticket, and have 1 moving citation on my record which I contest the validity. I’ll gladly fill in anyone via PM if they are interested. I watch everyone on the road like a hawk when I drive, you should too.)