And demanding that we do something the FAA way just because there is no statistically significant evidence that a different way is better is not a reasonable position to take.
Actually, that is an reasonable position to take, because of two important considerations :
(1) Trying to minimize regulatory burdens in the absence of valid documented anecdotal evidence or statistically verified evidence that significantly impact safety.
(2) Trying to harmonize Aviation Regulation worldwide (which is both an ICAO and an EASA concern).
Now you have just given us two good examples that it doesn't have to be the FAA way (fuel considerations and the necessity of a BFR).
But the way you formulate it reeks of an unhealthy anti-American sentiment. And the fact that certain elements complicate an interpretation of statistical data shouldn't be used as an excuse to impose a more burdensome regulation.
Recall the Seebohm quote :"We need this regulation because at present there isn't one". Now that is what I would call
not a reasonable position to take !
A lot of the Euroland regulatory stuff is there not because of a specific safety consideration, but because "we can do it differently". It is this European Identity Crisis fueled regulatory drive that we should stop.