I'm genuinely interested in this. Can you give me an example of where this has happened please? I come from a background where this has seldom if ever happened and I am genuinely interested to know that this has actually happened. Part of the reason why for me is what you say about being over-eager.
And that has happened in 2019 where an aircraft was evacuated whilst the engine was still turning resulting in injury. Here:
Stansted 2019
The reason why I ask about the passengers being informed is because in some cases it primes some people to act before they are ordered to, inevitably causing more problems. Further, I can't get my head around why crew go around a cabin explaining how to brace? It's published on a multilingual card in graphic form to explain and it is explained in person at the safety briefing.
The link you posted shows that the senior cabin crew decided to order the evacuation, not a passenger. The AAIB is clear that the circumstances for them to do that weren't there and he/she shouldn't have ordered the evacuation.
The pilots were also in the wrong. After the door open light showed in the cabin and the crew saw passengers evacuating, their first action should have been to shutdown the right engine. Instead, they called the cabin crew on the intercom to see what was going on. It took them over two minutes to shut down the engine putting passengers lives at risk.
I don't get why some are saying that the cabin crew shouldn't brief the passengers before any emergency landing. If time and conditions allow, SOPs require that pax are briefed on the brace position and evacuation procedures (i.e. waiting for the crew to order it and leaving luggage on the aircraft).
I would have no qualms flying on a Renton or Everett built Boeing, whatever its age, as long as it has been properly maintained. I would have no qualms flying on a 737 Max as long as I was sure the pilots had been trained how to fly it. There is nothing dangerous about the Max, the problem was trying to pretend it flew the same as earlier models so that pilots wouldn't have to be re-trained, thus saving the airlines money and allowing them to roster the same crews on both NG and Max variants. I never understood the rationale behind this as if the airline threatened to buy Airbuses instead they would not only have to re-train the pilots but take on every other cost involved with introducing a new type to the fleet.
Be under no doubt, the plane's MCAS system and the training provided for Max pilots were both fundamentally flawed. I am not trying to absolve Boeing of any blame, however, I think it's no surprise which airlines had crashes with the Max and which didn't.
Some of the stories I've heard about Ethiopian would make you never want to fly again. One example that would be obvious from a passenger's perspective is to talk to any Ethiopian staff. Their English varies from poor pidgin English to moderate. Then consider that all training for all staff (pilots/ cabin crew/ engineers) is undertaken in English. If that doesn't scare you, I am no sure what would.
Indonesian aviation has an absolutely terrible reputation. I know of multiple multinationals and governments which don't allow their staff to take any Indonesian airline unless there's no choice such as for a domestic flight (and then only on Garuda). The captain actually maintained relative control when MCAS malfunctioned. Only when handing over to the FO did the aircraft crash*.
*Thought this, arguably, was the captain's fault. He should have enured that he fully briefed the FO on how he was controlling the aircraft using the totally non-standard maximum trim deflection. He didn't. There are suggestions that this was down to language difficulties as the captain was Indian.
I should add that I have flown Ethiopian several times and would again. Even a 'dangerous' airline is exceptionally safe.