Well, right now I’m using neither… but I’ve had RAID0 in my main system for 5 years (and another 5 before that in the previous system). My interim backups are all RAID1 dedicated NAS.
“2x greater chance of data loss” sounds really bad except that a) it’s 2x a very small chance and b) it’s not really 2x. A drive may fail. If I had one drive I’d be screwed. If it’s two drives in RAID0, I’m still screwed. One drive is not more likely to fail by being in proximity of the other. So really, my probability of data loss is closer to that of one drive failing. Yes, a bit more because I’ve spread the odds but ‘double’ is probably overstating it. Usually, mean failure probability doesn’t work that way. (Actually, I guess the math says it’s closer to 2x the better the failure rate but still.)
Now… the odds that I’d be able to recover data from a partially bad drive is much greater without RAID0 and virtually nil with it. It’s a risk for speed and encourages one to backup often or keep important things in source control.