Your argument is essentially against all forms of safety equipment that protect against being rear-ended, and can be used without substantial modification to argue against safety equipment of all kinds: why bother with crumple zones when I could just insist everyone else on the road were better? The reality is that I am in the car being hit, there is little to nothing I can do to make people not hit me at some point in my life (and to this date, I have been in a car rear-ended twice; in both situations the person behind us was 100% at fault under essentially any useful definition of "at fault"), and so I have a budget I am willing to spend on random safety equipment to make me less likely to be injured when this happens. I already am spending a lot of money on safety features for my car: at least these ones sound cheap to add.

And you should always drive at the speed limit and come to a complete stop at stop signs. And yellow does not mean accelerate.

Lots of non-shitty drivers do not follow every road rule to the letter under every circumstance and, indeed, it's not always possible to especially without pissing off everyone around you.

I actually agree with the basic point that it's the following driver who has 99% of the responsibility not to run into the car ahead. That said, there are plenty of behaviors like coming to unnecessarily abrupt stops in unexpected places (which I'm not saying is the case here) that will absolutely lead to people running into you.

There's two things, bad people and bad drivers. Schools can only teach proper driving, not proper behavior. And schools are doing a sub-par job IMO. There are so many things you are not taught there or are in a hand-wavy fashion.