That's a really terrible analogy. :-(

I never drive without a seat belt.  And a never want the seat belt to actually matter, of course.  Everyone who want a zip_strict behavior (including me) wants to be able either to catch the exception explicitly or to have the program fail-fast/fail-hard because of it.

In contrast, as I've said, more than half of the times that *I* use zip() it would be BROKEN by using zip_strict() instead (or zip(..., strict=True), or whichever spelling).  Raising an exception for something I want to succeed, and I want to work exactly as it does (e.g. leave some iterators unconsumed) is not a "harmless safety precaution".

If you want a better metaphor: Some door handles include locks, others do not.  "Strict" ones have locks.  So yes, it's possible to leave the lock in the unlocked position, and then it functions pretty much the same as one without a lock.  But likewise, it's possible to leave the door in the locked position when you don't have the key on you, and you face a significant inconvenience that serves no purpose.

I have some doors with locks, and some other doors without locks.  I have both for a good reason, but the reasons are different, and depend on various things like whether a particular room is private or contains valuables.  In truth though, I don't lock my outside doors because I live in a community of "consenting adults" (occasionally I do lock the bathroom door for privacy, for a short while... no-locks is definitely strongly my default mode, as is no-strict when I zip).