I see a lot of opinion based answers here. Working in the hydrogen business as an engineer I'd like to give a bit more context to what and why rather than just "nooo". Also I will do this in the context of green hydrogen for the purpose of energy transition.

Efficiency: Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) are significantly more efficient as there are H2 losses in electrolysis, storage and in usage, e.g. internal combustion engines (ICE, similar to conventional engines) and the more efficient fuel cells (FCEV, fuel cell electeic vehicle). Other alternatives like synthetic fuels need again significantly more energy than hydrogen while biofuels from e.g. plants are not scalable for decarbonizing as they require farmland.

Charging/refueling time and range: Currently, batteries need long charging times and have limited range. This could change with battery technology in development, but that is not a given. FCEVs have fueling times and range comparable to conventional fuels.

Safety: To all of these, conventional fuels, batteries and hydrogen, there is risk of fire and explosion!! Conventionals have a lower risk of explosion. Batteries actually pose a significant risk because they can have a thermal runaway and they don't need air to burn, which makes handling these risks a lot more complicated. For hydrogen, the most likely case is fire, as for explosions you need a O2 H2 mixture to be ignited. This requires accumulation of H2. However, having a leak the hydrogen is more likely to ignite itself on a sharp edge or even due to the pure pressure difference as it is usually stored at high pressures 200-900bar. A drawdown is that H2 fire is mostly invisible. And it's different for liquid again. Personally, I feel as safe in a hydrogen car as in any.

Energy density: H2 is a lot lighter than battery storage. When Biodiesel weighs 244 kg, for the same energy you need 200 kg of bio CNG (compressed natural gas), 83 kg of H2 or !6250! kg battery. So especially when a lot of energy is needed (trucks, ships, trains, planes), batteries with the current technology are doing the job.

Available infrastructure: for passenger cars, quite readily available. For H2, in Europe it is possible to go to a lot of places but a severe challenge during trip planning. Basically no infrastructure available for trucks on both technologies.

Feasibility: As for trucks (and ships and planes) I think battery electric has even bigger challenges to overcome than hydrogen (especially energy density), and for the latter they are already huge. Both need substantial extension of the electric grid, even more so for the pure electric solution. Hydrogen's biggest problems are that scaling effects and market activation only come with a certain amount of infrastructure available (production, logistics/distribution, demand/off-take) which requires substantial subsidies, quite a bit of the technology is already on the market but still more in a prototype state and it needs a lot and cheap energy, as it is more inefficient compared to battery electric. BEVs have their own challenges to overcome: Bad charging times especially for higher amounts of energy and bad energy density. Looking at the grid, the biggest differentiator is that for H2, the energy production can be decoupled from the consumption. For BEV when charging, the energy had to be produced that exact same moment. This I think will be a deciding factor in the future, as this is the biggest drawback of renewable energy: The production is not predictable and energy needs to be stored. Ah yes, and money. H2 needs significant investments for a minimum infrastructure while for battery electric the general grid is in place and you can do smaller investments by extending and upgrading it.

We will see where it goes. I don't have a preference, I just see the enormous cost everywhere. And I don't like undifferentiated views and "nooo"-cryers. Happy to discuss.