Hi Homunculus
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or what point you thought I was trying to make. You won't find any statements from me about the rights or wrongs of flying over a built up area in single engine helicopters (I don't think!) the only comments I have made on the subject have been -
1) to suggest that a successful forced landing with no injury to occupants or third parties can not be used, after the event, to define a safe forced landing (whilst I could also argue that a forced landing, with injuries, could have commenced from a place where a safe forced landing could reasonably be expected);
2) the absence of laws to further enforce the requirement for 'reasonable expectation of a safe forced landing, in the event of failure of a power unit', over a built up area, can't be used to demonstrate the safety of such operations. My logic is that the USA appear to have a significant problem with mass shootings, often with military spec semi-automatic weapons; however, legislation has not been introduced to restrict or limit the possession or purchase of such weapons. A comparison of the two doesn't seem entirely irrelevant!
Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with the operation of single engine helicopters over built up areas, so long as I've got a reasonable expectation of being able to carry out a safe forced landing (I recognise that this has to be an objective assessment); however, given the choice, I would use a helicopter with two power units on the basis that out of all the failures that might ruin my day, a single engine failure is one that I can easily mitigate by putting a second engine in.
Cheers
TeeS