SW movement came from Lucas wanting to emulate dogfights, as small craft were the heart and soul of the movie universe. Never did we see capital ships behave in any other than what you would expect large ships to behave like (with the exception of the silliness of the SSD falling straight down when an A-wing crashed into it's bridge).
But Traveller also posits fighter "dogfights" and strafing runs... in a universe full of inertia... innn ssspppaaaccceeee. So you already have the silliness baked into the game.
The way to sidestep this would require a bit of handwavium - which isn't really as much of one considering. Some already argue for the magic of the M-drive, so why not simply add to the magic and make it so the drive emits a field around the ship that lets it do the silly things such as perform 180 degree turns to fire a spinal mount and spin back to it's original heading w/o losing any thrust movement for its' turn. This field also acts a sump of sorts for maneuvering. And by manipulating the field you can absorb your inertia and come to a full stop on turn zero, and then thrust in a totally different direction in turn one. This would mean you give up all your inertia, and a pursuing ship could quickly close the gap as it's inertia is not affected - though in practice it, too, would have to dump speed or else overshoot it's prey. To keep the rules cheaters from exploiting it too much, one could also implement a maximum breaking effect in the field, so that it would be akin to deploying flaps to slow your forward speed down, and it may take multiple turns to come to a stop. That's one way to do it.
A similar, simpler, way would be to say that the M-drive creates the field that reduces the mass of the ship to allow the gravitic thrusters to move the ship, and that with the field down the efficiency of the ships movement is greatly reduced - allowing for intertia, but also simplyfing the movement aspect of things.
In any case, if you put inertia in the game you should take out the idea of "random" ship encounters as there is no way in hell you can lie doggo at the 100D mark and intercept an inbound ship that already has a much higher delta-V than you can generate to intercept it from a standing start. And since you cannot detect an inbound jump ship (or intercept one that's been building delta-V for hours), piracy goes out the window. The argument that a ship could "coast" along known inbound jump routes works - but fails because the same ship would have to brake and halt its forward movement or else be discovered by planetary sensors and/or patrol ships and lose any pretense of surprise (and again you don't know when an inbound ship will appear, so the odds of interception piracy actually being successful drop close to nil).
So it really doesn't matter how much one like or dislikes different forms of movement, they all have massive gaps in believability if you still want to have any sorts of interaction between ships in a gaming universe where the sole method of moving between stars is jump drive using Millers rules as they are written. Keeping the same heading and velocity coming out of jump space as you had going in, interceptions simply aren't practical.
Inertia doesn't make dogfights unrealistic. It just changes the techniques and makes them look pretty crazy and wild to our eyes. Some episodes of Battle Star Galactica give this vibe, though they weren't very consistent about it. The Expanse episode where the Rocinante attacks the space station is a good example of a dogfighting in space sequence. It is not a matter of taking this fun thing away by insisting on boring science: rather it is a matter of knowledge of how this fun thing would actually work in space, (or not knowing and doing it wrongly (which actually makes it a less of a fun thing in the end) ) . The main thing to get a dogfight started is that you need to be on close to identical vectors and in close proximity. This you can do if you have a lot more thrust than your opponent and don't get shot down on the apporach.
There is no reason ships couldn't spin to point their weapons at their targets, shoot and then spin back regardless of heading. In fact, that's what they usually do in Traveller, to judge from the RAW. RAW ships shoot all their weapons every turn at any target they choose in range regardless of firing arc, which implies they are spinning around as needed. It is what happens in the Expanse when ships shoot each other, and it looks really cool and exciting.
Nobody has a "standing start" ever. The concept is meaningless. Each ship has a vector or an orbit around some object, unless it is sitting on the object. What that vector is, is a part of figuring out if you can intercept another ship - just like it's distance from your ship is. This doesn't change the overall possibilities of interception - it just means that you have to know two things about each ship: their location and vector.
There is no such thing as a "known jump route". This idea also makes no sense. Planets are the usual destination for ships and they are always in motion. So what would a "jump route" be? Any point in space or route where a jumping ship might appear to fly to a given planet will be in a very different location relative to that planet tomorrow, and a year from now it will be outside the star system in question entirely.
There is hope for aspiring pirates however, Finding ships in interplanetary space is difficult, but they come to gas giants and other fuel sources, where you can intercept them. Also, if you know where they are going and how fast they are thrusting you can find them by doing the math. Pirates need spies, sensor buoys and small craft scouts. Intelligent pirates don't pop up in well patrolled parts of well patrolled systems.
Erasing inertia somehow via technology raises all kinds of issues and questions which would have to be worked through, and these are really problematic for maintaining an interesting setting. All the physically impossible magic future techs in the game raise issues of how they interact with the game universe - witness all the discussions about jump drive's preservation of momentum or not, and m drives smashing asteroids into planets. These techs , or ones like them, are needed for the game to make the space opera work, though, so we have to do the work of figuring out how they interact with the rest of physics. Magic inertia erasers, however, don't add to the game, and so we don't need to do this work.
