AnFI - you are the one not engaging seriously because you can't get away from your own agenda.
It was simple question about engine failures not pilot error (if that is what you were alluding to with the remark about catastrophic arrivals into people's roofs) or any other cause (CFIT or IIMC for example)
The fact that present legislation (here at least) means that singles aren't allowed to operate over congested areas (for example in police or ambulance roles) means that you don't have legitimate stats to make your case.
You need to provide evidence from somewhere where singles spend as much time over congested areas as twins and compare the results of engine failures and the number of successful forced landings by singles in those cases.
The 'extra cost' or 'price to pay' you present as an argument against the added 'complexity' of a twin is just not valid - many singles have complex systems, stages of speed reduction and at least one freewheel which are just as likely to fail.
100 helicopters for 1000hrs might result in 1 engine failure, the chance of that being 'successful' is 99 out of 100
any actual data to back up that claim??? One engine failure in a single in 100,000 hours???That might be the case for gas turbines but I doubt it is valid for piston engines.