Back to OP
As several have stated here it is all about risk management, or maybe more ,risk evaluation.
Several years back there was an article in a flying mag were the writer was unable to find a single case of an engine failure in the pattern causing a fatality or a reportable incident\accident in the NTSB data base. I read a lot of the NTSB summaries and cannot recall a single such event myself. (Take offs excepted, we had a very sad case here of a T-210 which ingested the recently, and improperly installed, air filter on take off. The pilot was killed)
In that period there were a large number of fatalities involving maneuvering flight in the pattern, often stalls on the base to final turn.
One problem of the old mantra of stay close enough to the airport to be able to land in the case of an engine failure is you edge in too close, setting yours self up for a steep turn at low altitude and airspeed. That is a dangerous corner to be in.
In terms of smoking holes it would seem keeping a wider pattern to avoid steep turns, a known and persistent hazard, and accepting the so small it is not recorded risk of an off airport landing due to an engine failure is a good deal.
20 driver
As an aside, our local field was an Enstrom dealer and flight school for several years. After the fields owners third auto rotate into someones back yard he called a truck, had the helicopter hauled away and got out of that business line. He is still with us at 80 plus.