Yarr! Shiver me timbers.
The phenomenon of fanboyism in Tech disproves that, IMHO.
Not to mention that the frequency of inspections even for the kind of planes amateur pilots fly is insane compared to cars.
Something like a Cessna 152 (common single seat, single prop, plane) has in addition to the annual inspection another one every 100h of flight, plus of course before using it the pilot has to conduct a pre-flight inspection (which is mostly visual).
Imagine if before starting your car you had to check that the steering wheel actually turns the wheels or that the brakes actually work and every 100h of use you have to take it to a mechanic for a more thorough inspection, plus the engine only lasts 30,000h and you have to replace it after that.
Is the Dunning-Krugger effect mainly displayed by low education people?
In my own personal experience pretty much everybody displays that in areas outside their expertise, and I definitely include myself in this.
For example the phenomenon of people offering what basically amounts to Medical advice is incredibly common outside the Medical profession - pretty much every-fucking-body will offer you some suggestion if you say you're feeling like you have a bit of a temperature or something generic like that.
It's also my experience that highly educated people don't have any greater introspection abilities than the rest (i.e. for self-analysis and self-criticism) or empathy (to spot when other people feel that you're talking of your ass).
Maybe it's the environment I grew in, or the degrees I learned and professional occupations I had (so, Physics, Electronics Engineering, Software Engineering) that are too limited to make a judgement, maybe it's me showing my own Dunning-Kruger effect or maybe my observations are actually representative and reasonably correct: whichever way, my 2c is that learned people are no better at the adult mature skills (such as introspection and empathy) than the rest, something which also matches with my experience that the Education System (at least were I studied, Portugal of the 80s and 90s) doesn't at all teach those personal skills.
So IMHO, your assumption that the majority of those people have low education is probably incorrect, unless you're anchoring that on the statistic that most human beings on Planet Earth have low education, in which case they're certainly the majority of the confidently incorrect even if they're no more likely to be so than the rest simply because there's more of them than of the rest.
PS: Also note that amongst highly educated people there are people from different areas which emphasize different modes of thinking. My impression is that whilst STEM areas tend to emphasize analytical thinking, objectivity, assumption validation and precision, other areas actually require people to in many ways have a different relationship with objective reality (basically anything in which you're supposed to persuade others).
True.
After all, Workhouses and Indentured Servitude (the later, curiously, a reintroduction of Slavery - this time Debt-based - 3 decades after Britain abolished Chatel Slavery) were very common British practices in the 19th Century.
Also things that never get shown in modern portrayals of that time - such as Downtown Abbey - are how the "house staff" really got treated: for example they had to turn and face the wall when the lord or lady of the house passed them.
He would've slapped the Democrat Leadership from moving even more to the Right (with things like getting close to the Chenney Family) all the while one of the main strategies of the other candidate was to promise to solve the problems of the working class.
Yeah, Trump was lying his ass of, as usual, but clearly a lot of people saw "candidate that promises to improve my life" vs "candidate that doesn't even do that and cozies up with elites" and voted for the former or just thought "they're all liars" and didn't vote - relying on "fear of Trump" for the incumbent to get votes from an electorate which is economically crushed after 4 years of that incumbent's policies even while de facto telling that electorate that "we don't care about you", all while the opposing candidate tells the "I care about you" is the very opposite of an intelligent strategy.
So the supposedly "leadership material" at the top of Democrat Party applying for the position of "leader of the nation" literally followed the worst possible strategy when it comes to the vote of the low politically engaged working class (who don't live in the "couldn't give a shit about economic inequality" permanent online identity wars battlefield that is American "politics" nowadays), yet according to the Democrat Party tribalist club fans, the fault couldn't possible be of their incompetent, priviledged and "detached from what's the real world for most people" leaders and the fault is all with "leftwingers".
If America actually does keep on having free(-ish) election, people supporting this narrative are just making sure that after one or two Democrat Presidential terms, another MAGA type gets power again folowing the exact same strategy as Trump and they'll probably be a more effective version of Trump.
There's Liberalism the Ideology and then there's the "Liberalism" practiced by politicians - those two are only a bit more similar than Socialism and the ideology of the National Socialist Party Of The German Worker (i.e. the NAZI Party) were similar.
If there's one thing I learned from inside the Finance Industry during the 2008 Crash and subsequent rescues, after having read The Economist for years, is that (Neo)Liberalism isn't at all the flat-playing-field meritocratic free market ideology they portray themselves as.
They're in fact very much the opposite of that: they're an ideology of maximizing the gains of pre-existing advantages, so wealth and asset ownership - which not only preserved but extends those advantages - hence they're 100% in favor of current Land Ownership legislation and preserving the status quo in that, which was created well before proper Democracy and has nothing to do with merit of a flat playing field.
In the country with the highest land ownership concentration in Europe, that would trully be an unimaginable tragedy for the local upper class.
The entire Press in that country constantly pushes pro-Monarchy messaging and suppresses criticism of the Royals and much more so criticism of the actual system of Monarchy.
Even when the Royals do serious shit and it somehow leaks, it's always spinned as a just this once mistake that doesn't at all reflect on the rest, always making sure the reigning monarch is isolated from it.
The way Orban in Hungary makes sure he always wins election by controlling the Press is very much the way the Royals keep their power and money in Britain, with the difference that the latter has been going on for a lot longer than the former.
I was a member of the Green Party back when I lived in Britain (about 5 years ago) and can confirm they're left leaning. In fact back then (a year or so before Corbyn) they were the only left of center party in Britain with MPs.
At least the members tended to be middle class well intentioned in multiple ways (not just environmentally but also socially) types, but oh so naive (at least in my eyes, as I had a totally different background plus had spent a lot of time there in the seedy underbelly of that country - the Finance Industry, which is pretty much Sociopaths'R'us - hence felt they had a very gentle view of things which was quite ignorant of the life of the working class there).
If you want to pin down their ideas to an actual ideology, they were Social Democrats and Environmentalists.
Mind you, the party had only 2 MPs back them (on the vote of 1 million people, so they got only less than 0.3% of MPs on the vote of 2.5% of the electorate, almost 5% if you only count cast votes) because Britain two has the anti-Democratic First Past The Post system.
In a place like The Netherlands (which has Proportional Vote) they would've had between 7 and 14 MPs (depending on abstentions) with the votes of that proportion of voters and if the Tweede Kamer had 300 MPs (which it doesn't) like the British Parliament.
Britain has some very particular quirks in their Fascism that America doesn't have, most notably huge and centuries old class stratification well entrenched in its culture ("people should know their place" style), reflected in things such as the very high land ownership concentration in Britain.
Also the elites in Britain go to special schools (known as "public schools" even though they're private, a detail which itself should hint at how deceit is commonly used in Britain to present one impression of something which is something else) were they get taught amonsgt other things techniques to deceive others (plus some weird sociopathic shit in how to related to others, that for example means that pointing out to somebody with that upbringing that they "look a bit down" is actually taken as a gloating that "I'm not").
Further, the country has long had subtle power control mechanisms in place, such as how over 90% of high court judges attended those expensive "public schools" which only the scions of the upper middle and upper class can afford to attend - something which gets reflected in very different legal outcomes depending on which social class one comes from - or how over 70% of people who enter Oxford or Cambridge also went to "public schools" even though only 11% of children attend those (the entrance criteria for those universities is an interview rather than a purely meritocratic one like a test or grades, and I know of people who were literally told "you went to the wrong school" as reason to reject them). Essentially and except for a short period after WWII (back when Social Security and the National Health Service were created) the various levers of power have always been in the hands of the upper middle and upper class and access to opportunities for social mobility have always been highly restricted - a dumb, lazy scion of the upper class will get a degree from a top university and maybe a judgeship on a high court, whilst a smart and hard-working working class lad or lass can pretty much forget about either and this is just on class discrimination even without taking in account the actual wealth discrimination.
Fascism in Britain has a different expression and is anchored of a vast foundation of image-managed authoritarianism that tends to control by constraining people's options, and a subtler use of the Law for suppression under the cover of Lawfulness, rather than overtly the jackboot (though, as you see right now and was also on display at certain points during Thatcher's days, they sometimes use the jackboot overtly), whilst American Fascism is loud and brash, on top of a tradition of self-reliance and independence: basically at its most naked and overt, British Fascism looks like the way Occupy Wall Street was suppressed in the US, though that expression is but the tip of a very large iceberg.
All this to say that it's very hard to pin down just how bad Fascism in Britain is compared to America.
Bread and circus (Panem et circenses) has been a thing since Roman times.