Some considerations.
(a) energy-wise through the takeoff, so far as subsequent options are concerned, height beats speed hands down - drag consideration.
(b) if you stay low for speed, you gain little advantage tactically as you then have to get rid of the speed in the forced landing sequence anyway.
(c) the only case which comes to mind where I would like to have a bunch of extra speed when the noise stops is if there is ONE very long row of trees perpendicular to the runway direction and the speed/position is such that one could do a hop and pop over the trees into the next paddock. Generally, though, not a good plan to be fast and low. I guess that Ray Hanna was an exception .. but, for we mere mortals, conservatism is the better plan.
I'd probably just end up driving the thing into the trees at the end
the idea is to steer around/away from the trees .. or, if that's not possible, pick the softest/least undesirable of the available options and fly the aeroplane until it is no longer flyable. Sometimes the options are limited ...
Seems safer than a nice glide into the trees
... hurt is related to the hard bits and energy. Try to miss the hard bits. Energy is related to speed squared. Slow is GOOD if you have to hit the hard bits. Stall speeds are low on singles to give you a reasonable chance of weathering the impact. Indeed, a very early design standard was the selection of 70 mph maximum stall speed (finger in the wind technical basis at the time) for just this reason.