The Hindenburg disaster actually shows how safe hydrogen is. Despite the enormous fire, the majority of persons on board survived, and this with 1930s' state of burn treatment. Unlike kerosene flames, hydrogen flames radiate little heat. Hydrogen does not stick to surfaces or people.
IIRC, Hindenburg was supposed to have a thin outer helium layer surrounding the hydrogen providing the bulk lift, as a safety measure to inertize it, in case of leaks. But due to a wartime shortage of helium, the outer layer was filled with hydrogen as well, compromising safety. The original design was sound, but corner cutting caused the disaster.
The thing is that hydrogen's buoyancy is so high that it lifts up above the dirigible very quickly once released. So fire risk isn't really that great in terms of burns.
The bigger problem is the "lack of buoyancy" of the rest of the dirigible (and the impact with the Earth affecting the passengers). So that's a bigger issue to address, engineering-wise.
It is interesting how the Hindenburg is remembered meanwhile all the hundreds of planes that crashed in the Alps are forgotten. And this was when only VIPs could afford to fly.
It seems until the 1970s flying was like Russian roulette.
I've see quite a few images of heavier than air aircraft in lots of tiny pieces. One of my old colleagues starred in a popular TV series dedicated to air crash investigations, and he was working for a trade publication promoting flight...
It's just a meme at this point, and has been for 60 years. Fixed-wing airliners become a gargantuous fireball of death if they ever happen to hit the ground after takeoff, which they have occasionally done with someone filming the disaster.
You can of course debate the relative safety, but for eye-catching disastrous video material the world of aviation has a thousand times more than airships.
