Devil 49
As for workload: totally disagree.
As for the stats, I am sure you know the Lies, lies, statsitics....saying. The raw stats you rpovide as "proof" that singles may be safer than light twins ignores allsorts of variables. In this case, it ignores those accidents casued by night/weather CFIT rather than "engine failures". As it turns out, only twins are allowed to operate close to such risks (night/wx), thus singles are not going to have this risk exposure featured greatly in their statistics.
Indeed, as has been stated time and again on rotorheads, our greatest threat is CFIT. As twins are more exposed to CFIT, then accident rates are slewed.
The simple fact remains, no matter what statistics you throw down (excluding twins that do not stay up in the OEI cruise): twins are twice as likely to suffer an engine failure, BUT the consequence is negligable.
As risk equals frequency times consequence you have a simple outcome.
Single engine: frequency is low. Consequence is generally catastrophic over adverse terrain such as water, mountains, night, IFR. Thus risk is moderate for these ops.
Multi engine (and I will consider PC2 here that are exposed on take and landing briefly, giving, according to Nick Lappos,a 0.017% exposure): frequency is twice a single, but still low. Consequence is negligable. thus risk is negligable.
Even during that brief exposure time, you will assume less risk than a single because you still have one donk to give you increased RRPM as you cushion on.
Every time one of our colleagues loses his/her life from engine failure, I am sure it is a comfort to them to know that the statistics can be used to proove it was safer than having another donk.
But I am not comforted.