Can you name some?

There are finite resources. Resources used to comply with overzealous regulations are not spent in other ways. Some of these other ways save lives. Pick whichever ones you want - additional smoke detectors, pollution reduction, etc., etc.

It's ridiculous to advocate arbitrary, putative, safety enhancing measures without an argument about why that way of spending resources is better than many of the other alternatives.

In absence of "overzealous" regulation, a property developer could use some of the money they were going to spend on the job on, say, additional smoke detectors to make the place safer, but given NO requirements to spend money on something like smoke detectors, and that fact that it isn't their home or office they're working on, it seems far more likely excess money would go to other things. Like a bigger truck, video games, a sports car, trips to Europe/America/Asia, alcohol, cocaine, strippers (women who take their clothes off for money, not the work tool used to separate wire from insulation). Which are all things that one could choose to do with their own money, but I'd rather that regulations cause the money to go towards making houses safer so they don't burn down, or fail in an earthquake/tornado/hurricane/winter and kill somebody.

Bigger picture. It's not the property developer. It's the cost of the additional regulations which causes the marginal house buyer to not spend money on a smoke detector or a safer car.

"* There are people who are killed or hurt by overzealous code who you don't know about.*"

So you cannot name anyone. This is a completely hypothetical argument.

Well done. Of course it is. Just like the broken window fallacy.