The logic behind "better safe than sorry"

It struck me that the phrase "better safe than sorry" is somewhat illogical, or perhaps more accurately, it is so logical and obvious that it seems to carry no meaning at all.

My problem with this phrase is that is compares two things (being safe, and being sorry), one of which is obviously good, while the other is obviously bad. Clearly, being safe is better than the "base state", which in turn is better than being sorry. This is in contrast with another common phrase "prevention is better than cure", in which both prevention and cure presumably carry some cost, and the costs are compared in a very logical manner.

Could someone please explain why "better safe than sorry" makes sense? (assuming that it does)

Solution 1:

This is like "it's better to buy insurance and not need it (than it is to not have insurance and need it)."

In this phrase, being safe requires effort to be in that condition, but the effort is small compared to what loss might occur if that effort weren't made.

Examples are:

It's better to check behind your car every time you back out of your driveway, even if you don't have children or pets.

It's better to always check if the gun is loaded, even if you don't have bullets.

Solution 2:

This axiom is not a comparison between safe and sorry. It is a reminder, born out of bitter experience, that adverse situations will occur, and being prepared for when they do is better than the alternative.

Safety always takes time and effort that many see as a waste. If an adverse action occurs infrequently, it is all-too-human to assume that just because it hasn't happened recently, it will not happen.