Which makes it twice as unlikely to suffer a complete power loss that would put you into the scenery.
For some proportion of the flight regime and in others it will at least shift the location of the crash site. Economic full accountability for an engine failure in smaller multi-engine machinery is a fairly recent thing.
Most opinions on Pprune do have significant "cultural differences" based on geography and thankfully they do come to light and some need to realise that.
In this operation "engine failure" is only part of the equation. For a comparison look at the fixed wing ETOPS where an "engine failure" can put you in a single a long way from the beach yet engine failure is not at the top of the list of items that need to be addressed by any stretch of the imagination.
With a risk assessment based on empirical data it is easy to see that it is not exactly "raining helicopters" out there due to engine failure.
If you use the analogy of "signal to noise ratio" and this very same forum I think you may find the biggest signal involved some apparently sophisticated types - EC135, EC225, S92 - none of which had "engine failures".
For the Luddites out there - you do realise that most of the main rotor components on the AS350 are made of plastic?