There shouldn't be different risk levels anywhere across the airspace.
AIP,
The whole point of ICAO Airspace Classification is that
the risk level is the same in all classes ---- as the traffic increases, so does the CNS/ATM input ---- the intended result is that the target separation assurance level is achieved, regardless of traffic level.
I highly recommend a good look at some of the Eurocontrol publicly available detail, they actually publish an estimate of the levels achieved --- a commitment to a published performance standard, and a "how goes it". In my view, highly commendable. Australia is, sadly, one countries that does not publish such performance standards, much less produce reports on whether such standards have been achieved.
For some interesting studies on this whole subject, have a look for some of work of Roak Manor Research and Bureau Veritas, both European based, both have done work (risk analysis) on airspace design in Australia.
Owen Stanley,
Given the symptoms you consistently exhibit here and elsewhere, do you also foam at the mouth?? If you do, there is a very high statistical probability you have rabies --- sorry, I forgot you think statistical method is all s----.
As I have said to you before, religious freedom is in our Constitution, your beliefs are your business, but they certainly have no place in rational airspace management planning.
Tootle pip!!