Interesting thread this, and it's a subject close to my heart.
First, a few thoughts on risk. I was at a seminar in the states a few years ago when a test pilot stated: 'If the consequences are catastrophic, then it don't matter how slim the chances of it happening are, you've got to take it into account'. He went on to describe a missile firing that went wrong...... His original statement has always stuck in my mind. It is oh-so true when applied to the failure of the engine in a single engined aircraft, especially over water.
My own philosophy is to never (unless I can really help it) fly over water single engined. On the rare ocasions that I've had to, I've either sat on a bangseat (with appropiate survival gear), or worn an immersion suit, a parachute/dinghy, and a life preserver.
Further, in an outfit I used to fly for, we never flew single engined IMC when the cloudbase was less than 1500 ft over the terrain we were flying over. My current outfit is currently re-writing the Flying Order Book to prohibit flight in IMC single engined when the cloudbase over which one is flying is less than 1000ft agl.
I know that the risk of engine failure is slight when compared to other risks one exposes oneself too, but I expose myself to other risks as well as tht of engine failure, and risk is accumulative - I've also sufferred several engine failures and partial engine failures.
I also agree that it has to be each to his own........but there are old pilots and bold pilots............