Bloggs,
You talk the complete nonsense that is so typical of "expert professional" Australian pilots who have no real experience of anywhere else -- and no understanding of the risk management basis of ICAO airspace designation.
As I have often quoted Mick Toller, I will again: "Australia is an aviation Galapagos, where all sort of aviation mutations have developed in splendid isolation".
What John and Martha said is correct, but effectively misrepresented by you, before "alphabet soup" airspace was standardised by ICAO, what is now E in USA used to be called VFR exempt --- or put another way, virtually all US airspace is "controlled airspace", but for most of the non-TCA/TCTA ( as it was then called) airspace below 10,000' was "VFR exempt".
What all you anti-E "experts" seem to forget is that E is widely used, worldwide, including western Europe, not just USA.
As an aside, neither Europe or US is going to require anything like the ADS-B fitment that Australia has mandated ---- because they can do proper risk analysis.
Indeed, we can do it here, as well, but the rational results are rejected by irrational pilots.
As one well known Regional pilot repeatedly told us:
" We must address the perception of a risk, even when there is no risk".
This same pilot did a study tour of US, saw the whole system working, but when he returned to Australia, his words were to the effect : "It will never work in Australia, Australian pilots could not cope" --- as far as I am concerned, his remarks were an insult to every Australian pilot.
Don't you think it is time for Australia to grow up, after all, our rather poor loss of separation record, and our actual collision record ( remember how small aviation is in AU, compared to US) is nothing to write home about.
Tootle pip!!