Increased "space" between V1 and VR is not necessarily a function of reduced thrust.
If one can show adequate stopping distance from V1, it doesn't matter where on the runway it occurs. Or that mythical "crowbar" exists. However, if indeed there's a directional control problem waiting, reduced thrust provides for reduced assymetrical thrust issues and higher controllability during a rejected takeoff.
Ironically, we've had two aircraft recently experience engine fires during takeoff, with reduced thrust...both of which continued and returned to land safely. More importantly, with the reduced thrust calculation, there is no need to increase power on the "good" engine(s) throughout the entire exercise. The necessary performance, stopping or going, can all be done on the reduced thrust and still meet every margin every clearance, every gradient, every required criteria.
What do you call a runway that's five thousand feet longer than it needs to be? Long enough. What do you call a runway that's a thousand feet longer than it needs to be? Long enough. What do you call a runway that's as long as it needs to be? Long enough.
Extended engine life and reliability is more than a passing interest in safety. An engine which has been operated with reduced thrust takeoffs for it's life tends to live a lot longer, be more reliable, suffer less failures (or in other words experience longer mean times before failures--mtbf), cost less, and produce less problems.
Conversely, an engine which has been abused and pushed to it's limits regularly will have a higher probability of failure, and engines so operated have considerably reduced mean times and overhaul intervals.
Reduced thrust is safer, both in the short, and in the long run.