It certainly should, in nearly all walks of (safety-related) regulated life. Whether we like it or not, safety measures are necessarily a balance between cost (in all senses, not just financial) and benefit - since there is often no limit to how ('ridiculously') far one could theoretically go in attempts to minimise risks, often involving 'diminishing returns' as the cost increases beyond a certain point.
One big problem for regulators (and politicians) is that any stopping short of the theoretical ultimate involves (implicitly or explicitly) invoking the concept that "the small number of deaths/injuries is 'acceptable' " (in relation to the cost of reducing it) and/or ascribing a monetary value to a lost or damaged life. Unfortunately, inevitable though such considerations actually are, the bulk of the general public don't like hearing them voiced - and many will regard them as 'unacceptable' or 'callous' concepts. That presumably is at least one of the reasons why the last few decades have seen 'safety standards' progressively tightening in so many fields.
Kind Regards, John
