As a DM who continually struggles to reconcile how Long and Short rests are supposed to happen (in terms of game/class balance) vs how they always end up actually working during the campaign, I like this idea a lot. Its kind of the BG3 model where a SR is something you can take instantly and at almost any time you aren't in immediate peril, whereas taking a Long Rest is actually a big deal that consumes resources and involves actual down-time.
I suppose the counter argument is: if the party beds down for the night, its not a long rest? The response to which, I suppose, is: the SR/LR mechanic really only holds when the party is *adventuring* and in the dungeon or otherwise on high-alert.
If they're spending 2 weeks getting from one place to another, perhaps suffering the occasional wandering monster but that's it, then who cares? They're long-resting every night because its fine. But if the caravan is raided by bandits (big fight + short rest), the party tracks the bandits back to their lair to recover the Maguffin or hostages or something and has a couple battles against bandit scouts and a wandering bear along the way (a few smaller fights, then short rest), then the party finds the bandit camp and raids them back (big fight) and discovers the entrance to a ruined temple in the back of the camp (possible long rest before investigating?), then the cadence and circumstances are totally different and the Long Rest/Short Rest system comes into play.