This bit was meant to point out the extra speed means the inertia gave me more time to make a safe decision in how to react.
When I've got a really important decision to make, I scratch my.... head.
IF you are flying at best glide speed in the majority of single engine light planes made by well known manufacturers, please tell me how there isn't enough speed to flare?
Best glide speed should give you the best (farthest) glide in a no wind situation.
And certainly there is enough energy to arrest the descent at the very end of the flight.
Just to be precise, I've quoted the term "maximum" (rather than "best") from a selection of Cessna flight manuals to which I had referred. The intent being that gliding the plane at the speed for maximum glide will take you the farthest per altitude. That may be "best" if you need to make it to shore, but it may be far from the best, if there's a great landing spot right ahead of you, with some obstacles on the way, and a gusty wind. The pilot needs to make an informed decision as to what the "best" glide speed will be for each situation, and aim to be at that or a faster speed when an engine failure would be more critical.
So referring to:
The Cessna Flight Manuals I quickly reviewed (1979 C206, in particular) state a "Maximum" glide speed. It certainly won't be the best for an EFATO! If you attempt a flare and land from an EFATO at 50 feet, at the "maximum" glide speed in the flight manual of 65 knots, you're going to bend the plane. So, Cessna has wisely also provided a speed for EFATO; 80 knots. That's more like it.
A steady glide approach in a C 206 at gross weight at 65 knots will take you a long way (I've done it from 13,000 feet once), but if you enter a flare at that speed, things will happen very fast. So you are arresting a descent "fast", that means a more sudden change in approach angle, so more G, and trading speed for G more. If you get it wrong, there's nothing left at the bottom but a thump. When you look at the flight path, there will be a very small radius to the change from approach angle, to landing path. Small radius + bigger G = greater trade of energy. Or, from a faster glide approach, with a somewhat more steep angle, you have more stored energy, so that radius will be much larger, and the energy required to arrest the descent less, so you'll have less loss of speed, and more time to get it right.
This was taught to me during flying boat forced approach training, where a full stall landing, or worse, dropping it on, is very undesirable. My mentor told me to imagine I was going down a roller coaster, and at the bottom, smoothly pitch up as though to follow the rails - it worked perfectly. If you're a bit fast, just aim short of the intended landing place, and you have lots of control as you slow crossing the fence.
Though I do realize this it not the rotorheads forum, helicopter gliding none the less provides some insight to this. When gliding a helicopter, energy is stored as rotor RPM, up to 110%, more is better = longer to use it up flaring to land, so less rushed, better landing. But the maximum glide distance in a helicopter will be at a lower rotor RPM, because you're not storing energy in the rotor, you're only using it for the minimum lift you need to fly. If you flare from a low rotor RPM, things will happen really fast.
So, to a point, speed is your friend during any forced landing - speed = choice. Speed is easy to get rid of, when you no longer need it (you can slip a Cessna right onto the surface if you need to).
And it's worth remembering that if you really did get the speed wrong for your selected landing spot, you'd rather cross the near fence too fast, and not be able to stop for the far one, than to not make it over the near one, and crash into something at speed, without the opportunity to get the plane on the ground, and slow down for a while.
When it suddenly goes quiet, decisions must be made with little head scratching - 'cause your thinking, planning skill and experience have covered most of the factors.