[Doxterpepper]

> They aren’t paying attention and when the light turns green they may either hit a pedestrian as they hurry to move...

This sounds like a different issue that can arise without phones being involved. Just because you look at your phone does not mean you need to be sheepish when you look back up. The problem is people are more worried about getting going than being safe.

> ...or not notice the green and be rear ended by a driver who expects them to begin moving.

If someone rear ends you when the light turns green that is 100% their fault. You can't start moving if the car in front of you is stopped. This has been the case long before the existence of phones.

[SamReidHughes]

Assigning fault has nothing to do with safety.

[mannanj]

Isn't this entire thread about assigning blame to cell phones causing safety issues? Instead of looking objectively at all the various issues that cause safety issues while driving: distraction, day-dreaming, sleep loss (comparable to driving while drunk), etc etc

[kazinator]

In this case, the fault assignment correctly identifies as unsafe that driver who started moving and rammed a stopped vehicle immediately in front.

[SamReidHughes]

The stopped vehicle at a green light also increased the probability of collision.

Most collisions require two unsafe drivers. One to swerve out of their lane, another who thoughtlessly drive down the highway alongside another car; that sort of thing.

[kazinator]

There is no excuse for hitting something unmoving, right in front of your vehicle, which has been there the whole time.

Vehicles can remain standing on a green for reasons like the engine having stalled, or there still being a pedestrian in front of them.

It is not comparable to doing something poorly considered for which there cannot be a good reason, like driving in someone's blindspot on the freeway for hundreds of meters, in low traffic.

[Lio]

No, sorry if you drive into the back of another car that’s your fault for being too close and not being prepared to stop.

If someone drives into a stationary car just because the lights go green they are an incompetent driver because they haven’t checked the road is clear before moving off.

The car in front could have stalled, the driver could have had a heart attack, a child could have run into the road 3 cars down and you can’t see them.

Anything could have happened and if you’re not prepared for that at all times YOU are not in control of your vehicle and hence a bad driver.

Too many drivers have cognitive dissonance of the form “I already know I’m an excellent driver, so it couldn’t possibly be my fault...” for every situation this why we need presumed liability.

[kazinator]

A very simple and necessary general principle is that if two or more vehicles are involved in a collision, if it can be shown that some of them violated the traffic code (committed a ticketable moving offense) and some did not, then the liability should be apportioned among just those drivers which violated the traffic code.