No mate, nothing wrong with the Titanic as a mass transportation system at all. She was a ship, one of the safest systems we have, and a fine one at that.
One individual incident does not indicate much, if anything about safety, any more than a lack of incidents does. She was far, far safer than any before her and was as unsinkable as the technology of the day could make her. Even by todays standards she was proof against all but the most extreme of circunstances, yet fate took charge as we all know. The failure in the Titanic case was human, operational. The Captain drove her at an utterly irresponsible speed for the prevailing conditions,lifeboat drills were virtually ignored and design re insufficient lifeboats contributed also. Nothing wrong with the ship, any more tan the DC10 wa at fault at Mt Erebus. It wa the sloppy procedures in the company that caused the crash. Was Air NZ "safe" before the accident, and "unsafe" afterwards? Hell no! The procedures made the operation inherently more hazardous than it needeed to have been.
If a company encourages ot ignores high speed taxying then it clearly exposes itself to more risk than one that does not. Do they/don't they? Use your eyes. The answer is plain to all.
Fast approaches? Just go sit abeam 4 mile finals and watch where different coloured 737s configure gear and flap 15. What you'll see is pretty clear, from my experience of observation. There is one colour combination that does it a mile closer to the field than everyone else. Who do you reckon they are?