Hydrogen is explosive over a wide range of fuel-air mixtures. Kerosene not so much - it's very similar to diesel and jet fuel, with a relatively high boiling point and not much in the way of explosive vapor at normal temperatures. Which is why diesel is preferred for boat engines.

As for hydrogen-fueled aircraft, that has other problems. Mainly, even liquefied, it's not very energy-dense (diesel and Jet A are much, much better), plus the many handling and storage problems. In principle, it works; in practice, it would be annoying to deal with. Plus, it does little good from a carbon-emission standpoint because most commercial hydrogen is produced from natural gas (which of course is mostly methane - CH4 - which is easily cracked with steam to produce hydrogen and CO2. So no benefit. Why not just burn the natural gas?

Yes, it's possible to use more direct methods to produce hydrogen (such as electrolysis), but none of them are as efficient on a lifecycle basis as just running a train on overhead wires or batteries. It's also barely better than just burning natural gas itself, or diesel fuel (which can be produced from biological sources btw), in a modern engine. The main benefit of burning hydrogen is "zero" local emissions (of anything but water) depending on how you "burn" it - fuel cells are efficient and practically-zero emission, but you can burn hydrogen in a conventional engine too which produces some NOx.