The proportion of PPL holders who would attempt an achievable IR is likely to be considerably lower than the number who attempt an IMC rating, so the net result will be more pilots with less instrument training. That will lead to more DEAD bodies!
Whilst I would support a more ICAO based approach to the IR, we must not do that at the expense of a rating that has improved safety for the majority.
So much of this debate has been turned over and over here and elsewhere that it's hard to say anything relevant
But one thing not often mentioned is that - taking UK IFR flight as a whole - the IR has a much narrower applicability than the IMCR. The IMCR is usable by the spamcan rental/syndicate scene, whereas the IR is much less so, due to insufficient airways-flight equipment.
This is because in the UK Class G one can fly IFR freely, with almost no specified equipment and in practice a handheld GPS does the job. And even if non-radio IFR in Class G was banned, it could never be enforced so anybody doing it will carry on doing it. One doesn't need an IR for this. The IMCR is
practically required for landing on an official instrument approach, but enroute nobody knows what you are doing.
The IR is applicable to aircraft owners who tend to carry better equipment and fly "proper IFR". My guess that in the UK there are no more than a few hundred of these.
The question then becomes: what if the IR was as accessible as the IMCR? Well obviously then there would be no difference, but this is not going to happen! For example the IR annual test is always going to be harder than the IMCR one.