Nowadays it is nearly impossible to have too much runway in front of you at V1, at least in the airline business. I have no idea if it is usual to reduce your thrust on GA aircraft with the same tools on a regular basis as we do in the airline business.
Even in a nearly empty 737-700 we have a Vr in the red lights on a 4000m runway, but we usually use improved climb, fixed derate and assumed temperature, it saves millions over the course of a normal year even on a small fleet.
If i can really do a reject precisely at V1, the best i could do was a stop 180 ft short of the end of the runway, but only if i have both engines and use full reverse which is not part of the approved performance figures. Just missing a "small" item like raising the speedbrakes will certainly lead to leaving the end of the runway at 70kts, not a nice thing to do. Just waiting until 2 seconds after V1 with the start of the RTO manouver will lead to the same result. Even more interesting, a blown tire but otherwise a perfectly executed RTO with 2 engines running and full reverse thrust will still lead to leaving the runway at 45kts.
And yes, using the wrong numbers like dry performance on a wet runway is very unpleasant as well. Real engine failure close to V1 and perfectly executed RTO with reverse thrust at dry V1 on a wet runway will lead to leaving the runway at 65 kts.
Those figures are very sobering and that is why we are trained to be go-minded and have to watch boeing/airbus instructional videos at least once a year stressing that point.
When comparing airline and business accident figures you have to count in the difference in numbers of sectors/hours flown per year and aircraft as well as total figures. For example a normal (longrange) aircraft in our fleet flies around 6000 hours a year and there is still space to improve that, though not by a lot.