Agree with every part of this. One just has to read NASA's hydrogen handling safety guidelines to get a sense of what working with it is like. That hydrogen fueling station detonation (and it was a literal detonation, not just a deflagration - unlike simple hydrocarbons, hydrogen is very prone to detonations)? It only involved a mere estimated 1-4kg of hydrogen. Yet was powerful enough to detonate airbags in a car passing on a nearby street. It ignites with a literal order of magnitude less ignition energy (levels that common electronic devices are not rated to suppress) and burns in almost any fuel-air mixture, from several percent up to 3/4ths. It pools under overhangs and in buildings in explosive mixtures. Leaks from hydrogen pipes can enter pipes above them, follow them to their destinations, and pool there. Leaked hydrogen (leaks from almost anything) destroys ozone, too.
Liquid hydrogen is a whole different can of worms - explosive mixes of vaporized liquid hydrogen are first ground hugging (due to the low temperature), then buoyant. It freezes oxygen solid; solid oxygen crystals in liquid hydrogen are explosive. Liquefied air pooling in random spots on hydrogen-fueled spacecraft is a constant bugbear. Liquid hydrogen takes hydrogen's property of embrittlement via intercalation, and adds to it embrittlement via cold, and takes gaseous hydrogen's properties and amplifies them by the increased density. Also, hydrogen also comes in two phases (ortho and para), and the equilibrium ratio varies based on temperature - but the conversion is not instantaneous (takes days). Conversion from ortho to para gives off heat, can be unintentionally catalyzed in some circumstances, and thus creates an overpressure hazard, and even in the best case, means you have to spend more energy making LH2 and/or face significant boiloff problems.
I find it weird that I still see some people clinging to the idea of hydrogen cars (usually, I find, people who are very ignorant about EVs, and unaware of some of the most basic aspects of the hydrogen fuel cycle, such as its inefficiency). At least in rockets there's an excuse for upper stages due to the Isp. But even then... for example, if you wanted to launch a spacecraft on a high-dV trajectory, rather than using a hydrolox upper stage on a 2-stage vehicle, you can use a higher payload kerolox (or methalox) 2-stage vehicle to a lower-dV trajectory and just use the extra payload to increase your spacecraft's propellant tanks (so it can finish providing the requisite dV) - thus effectively transforming your kerolox/methalox launch stack from a 2-stage vehicle into a 3-stage vehicle and outperforming the hydrolox vehicle. And your 2-stage kerolox/methalox vehicle has a fundamental cost advantage (both development and operations) in that both stages are basically the same design, gain economies of scale, and likely share the same engines (just with vacuum nozzles on the upper stage).
