No, they have significant issues on a regular basis still.

And plenty of more recent examples: https://www.fox29.com/news/tanker-truck-fire-closes-stretch-...

Ammonia is one of the most common chemicals manufactured and transported around the world and has plenty of accidents but hydrocarbon accidents get into the hundreds of deaths: 150 dead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoa_disaster 500-600 dead 5000–7000 suffering severe burns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juanico_disaster etc.

I suppose it's worth noting in your second link, the fatalities were from the kinetics of the impact, which is a hazard that belongs to "things with velocity" rather than "things containing fuels".

We can assume that uncontained fire and explosion are categorical hazards with fuels.

Ammonia has significant risks that few other proposed fuels present and I believe it's worth considering whether this is something we want moving outside of hazmat routes between industrial zones.

Major spills of either are dangerous but rare compared to how much is being created and transported. We’re only ~5x as much gasoline vs Ammonia today. Considering most cars would be EV’s I suspect the total amount of Ammonia produced even with widespread adoption isn’t going to change by that much. Say Long haul trucks, heavy equipment, aircraft etc.

PS: Which isn’t to say Ammonia is actually a good fuel, the only thing I can think that actually used the stuff was the X-15. So it would need significant economic advantages to end up adopted.

Ammonia is probably too unsafe for cars and boats. But anything filled by professionals like trains or ships would work. But might work to have tank exchange system like with propane.