Yes! Intrusive safety requirements are reserved for modes of transportation that poor people could feasibly use because rich people do not allow themselves to be overregulated.
There have been a half dozen near Tenerife-style disasters in American airports in the past few months, and I haven't seen the FAA shut down a single runway or control tower. There have been two near mass-casualty incidents at Logan in the past 60 days and the flights are still moving. The rich would never stand for anything else.
Are you just ignoring statistical data for your gut beliefs? Saying "half dozen near Tenerife-style disasters" doesn't change aircraft has the lowest accident and fatality rate of any of the major modes. A glitch in the tracking system caused the US to shut all plane travel for the entire morning a few months ago. Airlines are not lightly regulated.
At least match the European standards... for heavy and light rail. Europe seems to do okay, right?
I don't disagree with you. But we got a person here who does not seem to operate or recognize nuance. You are wondering if FRA regulations could be too stringent based on other countries of high development able to provide the same standards with less strict requirements. Meanwhile this guy is calling regulations onerous because of he believes that the usage rate of rich people on certain modes can be an objective measurement of the real safety standards of other modes.