I have had one engine failure in an almost brand new twin - so those that say the risk of an engine failure in a well maintained single while statistically correct doesn't except an engine failure in any aircraft is possible. However good your forced landing skills if nothing else ending up in a field will spoil your day, will be costly in terms of recovering the aircraft and almost certainly will involve some damage - the outcome might be far worse. Be in no doubt if you fly a single that is a risk you must accept - there are no buts, no maybes, it can happen in the best maintained brand new rocket ship.
So all other factors aside with reasonable currency and training a failure in a twin en route is a non event. You pays your money and make your own decision whether that is worth a premium. Obviously twins bring a host of other advantages.
On the other side of the coin it is often recited they simply take you to the site of the crash a little bit slower (or quicker) depending on who you listen to. It is not true. It is true that some pilots flying twins should not be, and it is true that the climb performance of some twins particularly around MTOW is marginal. Ignore those rules at your peril. However, respect recurrent training ensures competency and in reality few flights will be at or close to MTOW.
Flying a twin is rewarding. There is no doubt they are a much more stable platform. Chances are with both engines they will be a great deal more capable than a single, and make the right choice, and they don't perform too badly with a failed engine.
So if you are in the market for a twin and understand the costs involved dont listen to the nay sayers, there is a lot to be said for two engines and the risks are overdone by those than haven't flown twins and don't understand whats needed to make their operation safer than flying a single.