The reason it's not controversial nowadays is because it's (almost) universally accepted as a good idea (though people do buy fake seatbelt plugs to disable the alarms)
Yet this was not always the case. Growing up wearing seatbelts was the exception, not the norm. Much less the law in some places.
There were no "scientists" claiming hyperbolic doomsday scenarios if we didn't pass specific legislation by a certain date. The collapse of our transportation infrastructure due to Kessler Syndrome -- but for highways. This should cause any rational person to be skeptical.
There were no fund raising rallies held by highly influential "scientists" who refused to wear seat belts themselves. This too, should cause any rational person to be skeptical.
People did not start with a chosen solution, and selected evidence to back it. They started with evidence, and searched for the best solution.
In effect? Seatbelts and airbags weren't a cargo cult driven by celebrity "scientists" that relied on emotional appeal. If you want your politicians to "listen" to "science", then you must divest the emotions, the desire for power, and the appeal to authority from it.
Have you ever wondered why it's not terribly controversial to "recommend" seat belts and airbags?
But when your "recommendation" is to join a large organization and funnel millions of dollars into it, or to levy massive taxes to prevent "the end of the world as we know it"? Pardon me, but I'm deeply skeptical.
Do you remember Solyndra? $500 million loan from the government. Went bankrupt.
I will not accept this straw man re-framing of the issue. Yes, "some people" say "but science isn't always right", and that is a poor argument indeed. But I am not.