Agreed that doing intrinsic safety for H2 is hell. I did once design a LED sidelight for the relevant class with significant current (redundant electronic energy regulation). So it is possible to do stuff, it just takes more work. The tendency for modern electronics to be very low voltage helps a lot.
The ignition zone is larger, risk is higher.
Add in hydrogen's extreme tendency to leak, metal embrittlement, and high pressures and/or low temperatures, and the risks are immense. Particularly at scale, in widespread use, with poor maintenance and inspections.
It’s not strictly better or worse, just different. Diesel for example can be very dangerous in a large open topped container, hydrogen just doesn’t stick around in that environment.
PS: Consider what it would take to make a large hydrogen fuel air bomb that’s as effective as it’s hydrocarbon equivalent.
That and they have very few missions where the increased ISP from LH2 would actually benefit them. The other upside of LH2 and LOX is that you can run it in engines, but you can also run it in fuel cells directly and generate a surprising amount of electricity from a very small package -- the other benefit there is that the Fuel Cells produce pure water as a byproduct.
The Space Shuttle had three fuel cells which provided more than enough power for a full mission. Most missions could be run on two without any compromises. Also, when it was visiting the ISS, it was a convenient means of supplying water to the station.
On non ISS missions, so much water is generated that they have to dump it overboard.
Depending on energy density and power density requirements, I think a combination of batteries and traditional fossil fuels will win in the short term. In the long term, when we have stopped burning fossil fuels for electricity, then we can use electricity to manufacture them. Under this path, hydrogen will have limited importance.