Taking risks when you don't have to - Single engine

[B47]

Reading the thread about the Antarctic ditching prompts me to ask where do you pitch the risks of single engine ops when you have the choice?
The question applies more to the choices you have when pleasure flying, not commercial ops.
My point is that, if as reported, the R44 was not equipped with floats I'm fascinated by the decision to fly a single engine piston over a murderously cold sea.
I will not fly my B47 over water and even go around mature woodland. I have the choice as a PPL and the short detour isn't a problem. I find so many pilots think the engine will never ever stop and just because it hasn't happened to them it leads to overconfidence and complete trust that it never will. I wouldn't survive an engine-off into packed mature woodland and would find myself in 50' of water before I could get out of a sinking 47. The passenger would have no chance. All that flight manual bull about tipping it on its side to slow the rotors - you must be joking, it would sink like the lump of metal it is. Anything with no inherent bouyancy (especially with doors open as per manual...!) like the 47, H300 or R22 would not stay on the surface for a second.

I repeat, my caution over always avoiding hostile terrain with a single engine can't apply to you pros, but as a PPL(H) am I alone in taking no unecessary chances, when you have the choice?

B47
Although you said you wanted to discuss single-engine flying in general rather than the recent specific incident, you mentioned that incident more than once and made a comment about the pilots so it's not surprising people responded.
I've deleted those references and the posts which followed to avoid any further confusion.

Comments about s/e flying in general here.

Comments about the Antarctic incident on the thread currently running.