I looked for a simple non-electronic car recently to buy, and found out that the government has mandated numerous safety systems requiring electronics like back

I looked for a simple non-electronic car recently to buy, and found out that the government has mandated numerous safety systems requiring electronics like backup cameras, no seatbelt alarms, blind spot monitoring, lane assist etc, and in the upcoming infrastructure bill there is a rider to add breathalyzers to every new car made in America. (ref below) Is there an officially designated cost/reduced risk ratio that policy makers can go by to determine if a regulation is worth while? Is a regulation that costs 1 billion dollars to save 10 lives at 100 million a life considered worthwhile? Is a regulation that costs 1 billion dollars to save 1 million lives at a cost of 1000 a life worthwhile? Is there even an officially designated cost per life saved for new safety regulations? If not it seems like a slippery slope, and the government can never overreach as long as it can justify the regulation by saying it saves a single life. Reference: https://time.com/6086981/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-breathalyzers/ https://time.com/6086981/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-brea...