There is no 50/50 with No-safe vs Safe if one does not equate the risks vs reward. Higher risk should give higher reward. How much higher is debatable, but even PvE only games follow that "rule".
What it seems like most of the "more safe" people want is either a separate server or a server that might as well be separate.
If the game is going to cater to both hardcore pvp-ers (I think it said that they wanted to) and hardcore...non-pvper (this is more of the basic shape of the game), you have to make both types of players feed on each other. This is why there is talk about rare resources. @Arkonic-> There isn't even a PVE sector without rare resources. To make both sides feed off of each other, you have to have rarity in both areas of play that the other side wants, but can't get and vice-versa. They have to be difficult/easy enough to obtain to discourage exploitation. I repeat...it is not equality without equating risk. Not being safe (getting killed all of the time) is a risk not a reward.
Contested resources are one of the key "features" eventually entering the game... (I'd say warring isn't really supposed to be a key feature yet). The only way this feature can appear is if there is some rarity. The only way the resource can be contested is if it is not in a safe zone. If one just includes travel between safe zones as the part that is contested...that's pretty unfair. If one can transfer the contested resources between a non-safe and a safe zone then that is...fairer, but not completely fair. With this in mind, the "toggle-War-Status" thing Xsyon wants could probably work OK (not perfect, but this isn't s'pose to be pvp centric so that's ok), and probably even be better than the pve/pvp separate-but-equal crap.
The only no-safe/safe area zone split that is fair is low risk/low reward zones and high risk/high reward zones not low risk/high reward and high risk/ high reward. If you cannot handle it the fair way, let's stop thinking like CCP.