I'm really not underestimating anything, I'm making a few assumptions that may or may not be correct based on the story posted(Mainly, I'm assuming from the wording that his friend was parked very close to the end of the corner with not much space between seeing the car and hitting the car).

What that chart tells me is that if OP was going at standard highway speed and his friend had stopped within about 20 car lengths of the end of the corner then it would have been physically impossible for him to stop in time. Hell, if he had been doing the overly cautious thing and slowing down to half highway speed then if his friend was parked withing 13 car lengths of becoming visible then he couldn't have stopped in time. (I would also like to see how the tests were performed to measure reaction time because every one of these that I have seen fails to take into account that the driver knew that were going to be asked to stop and often they have a rough idea of when they will be asked to stop both of which speed up reaction time significantly)

The cop could assume OP violated these laws since he crashed. The hazard his friend posed wasn't an unavoidable obstacle. In other words, OP deserved the ticket. Assuming his friends car was actually in the middle of a road around a blind corner, his friend deserved a ticket too for creating an obstacle to traffic. Both were at fault, but OP caused the accident.

You seem to have mistaken what I was arguing, I don't disagree with anything that you said there. Yes, the cop probably did assume that OP had broken a law or at least not been as cautious as he could have been and that is probably fair. Yes, OP and his friend probably both deserved a ticket. At no point was I arguing against that. All I was saying is that it is somewhere between highly impractical and physically impossible to drive in such a way that you can avoid literally every dangerous situation that occurs (which is what the post that I was reply to was saying we should do).