We are already doing this by letting people drive with personal vehicles every year even they cost dozens of thousands of lives. There is no zero risk, but we decide (we, as in, the society at large, not individuals) what level of harm is "acceptable".
I mean, various insurances price human lives already, so it's not exactly novel, but here the decisions directly cause these tradeoffs to play out (whereas e.g. a life insurance does not cause a death for monetary gain).
> nobody stops sleeping at night at the same time
When driving deaths go up, people do react. There are driving safety campaigns, dont drive drunk campaigns, wear seatbelts campaigns. The roads are changed, signs are put up, speed limits are placed.
Yes, but these show marginal improvements. I don't think you can make the case that any of these measures, even combined, would be able to reduce the death toll by even 50% over time. It means that, all in all, we are pretty much willing to sacrifice at least X amount of people per year for a number of reasons.