If pilot A is SAFE and pilot B is SAFER, there is simply no reason to value pilot B more than pilot A. Safe is good enough. Would you agree that a safe pilot wouldn’t crash into a mountain?
You're pretending that safety is a binary, yes/no concept, which of course it isn't. My 1975 Holden Kingswood was a 'safe' car - if it was unsafe, no-one would've bought the things. But a 1975 Volvo was even safer, and some people were willing to pay more as a result. These days, either the 'safe' Holden or 'safer' Volvo would be a lethally dangerous ****box in comparison to even the most humble Kia. It's all relative.
As to whether a safe pilot would crash into a mountain, just about every pilot that's ever crashed an airliner was 'safe' when they reported for work. They'd passed their last renewal, route check and medical, and never crashed before. Their airlines were happy for them to fly their aircraft. By your standards, they were safe. And yet, within hours, they'd stalled from 35000' into the water, totally failed to manage their airspeed during a visual approach, or tried to land a 737 at 221 kts on a 2200m runway. They might've been considered 'safe' when they signed on, but clearly there were other pilots out there who were safer. I'd certainly value them more.