In addition, the extra expense associated with regulation to make planes ultra-safe makes it unaffordable for some people. Those people then go on to use a vastly less safe form of transportation.
The nature of aviation, where unplanned problems result in unplanned non-optional landings in random locations (instead of just pulling off the side of the road), would rapidly turn aviation into the most dangerous transport mode. Aviation would soon become unsustainable, and available to no one.
How does making it less safe help anything? (note that I'm not discussing the FAA's massive inefficiencies, many of which I'm sure could be improved without compromising safety)
We do though. In America you can build/buy and fly your own airplane with no license, regulation or certification at all. The catch is that it must be a very small airplane; single seat, under 115kg empty, max 5 gallons of fuel, etc, etc. You can buy or build many of them for about the price of a motorcycle or used car.
They're fairly dangerous to the pilot, but are so small and light they probably don't pose much risk to others. Of course if one crashed straight into you, you'd probably die, but that doesn't happen very often.
These are almost entirely for recreation and not for transportation.
The basic rules limit use to VFR (Visual Flight Rules), so daytime only on nice days, limited range, etc. Wonderful for getting up and enjoying the sky, but highly impractical for transportation. We don't see grocery stores ir office/industrial parks installing short airstrip fields for the shoppers or commuters arriving in Ultralights, but they do install bicycle racks. I'd say a bicycle is far more useful in any practical sense.
So yes, in using aircraft for transportation, we're almost entirely in the regime of high regulation and expense.
I didn't argue for no regulation. I argued for less regulation.
There is regulation that provides almost no safety benefit (because there is already plenty of regulation), while increasing cost noticeably.