[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.