I heard this statement and it confused me. The explanation was more red cars have accidents than other cars. But surely that doesn’t translate to “I personally am more likely to have an accident if I drive a red car than a blue car today”? Assuming there’s nothing inherently about red cars that makes them more likely to crash. I’m struggling with the maths theory behind it.
Edit to clarify my question: does the statistic that “red cars have more accidents” translate to the statement that “I, personally, all other things being equal, am more likely to have an accident if I drive a red car than a blue one”?
In: 10
Hmm I’ve never heard this one actually. I’ve always heard you’re more likely to get a speeding ticket when you drive over the speed limit in a red car.
Hmm I’ve never heard this one actually. I’ve always heard you’re more likely to get a speeding ticket when you drive over the speed limit in a red car.
Hmm I’ve never heard this one actually. I’ve always heard you’re more likely to get a speeding ticket when you drive over the speed limit in a red car.
> Assuming there’s nothing inherently about red cars that makes them more likely to crash.
This is the assumption you can’t really make.
Is the statistic corrected for the ratio of red cars overall(as in, maybe more red car accidents happen because there are more red cars)?
This mistake is so common, there’s a [meme subreddit just for maps of things that in reality correlate simply with population count](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeopleLiveInCities/).
Assuming we got that issue out of the way, and red cars are really overall have more accidents, *we still don’t know why*. Is it because more reckless, “sporty” drivers are more likely to get a red car(for a second ignore the fact that this is supposedly the actual reason from the other comment, from the *math alone* we simply don’t know)? Does red somehow confuse other drivers into making mistakes? Do certain common wild animals not see red at all, causing the larger numbers to be from roadkill accidents(which if we correct for, we find that in cities red cars are again no different)?
The key is that *we don’t know* from the math alone. There *IS* a cause clearly(unless whoever made the statistics botched something), but unless we find out what it is, we can’t know if any one case is at risk without knowing if the underlying condition applies to it.
> Assuming there’s nothing inherently about red cars that makes them more likely to crash.
This is the assumption you can’t really make.
Is the statistic corrected for the ratio of red cars overall(as in, maybe more red car accidents happen because there are more red cars)?
This mistake is so common, there’s a [meme subreddit just for maps of things that in reality correlate simply with population count](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeopleLiveInCities/).
Assuming we got that issue out of the way, and red cars are really overall have more accidents, *we still don’t know why*. Is it because more reckless, “sporty” drivers are more likely to get a red car(for a second ignore the fact that this is supposedly the actual reason from the other comment, from the *math alone* we simply don’t know)? Does red somehow confuse other drivers into making mistakes? Do certain common wild animals not see red at all, causing the larger numbers to be from roadkill accidents(which if we correct for, we find that in cities red cars are again no different)?
The key is that *we don’t know* from the math alone. There *IS* a cause clearly(unless whoever made the statistics botched something), but unless we find out what it is, we can’t know if any one case is at risk without knowing if the underlying condition applies to it.
> Assuming there’s nothing inherently about red cars that makes them more likely to crash.
This is the assumption you can’t really make.
Is the statistic corrected for the ratio of red cars overall(as in, maybe more red car accidents happen because there are more red cars)?
This mistake is so common, there’s a [meme subreddit just for maps of things that in reality correlate simply with population count](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeopleLiveInCities/).
Assuming we got that issue out of the way, and red cars are really overall have more accidents, *we still don’t know why*. Is it because more reckless, “sporty” drivers are more likely to get a red car(for a second ignore the fact that this is supposedly the actual reason from the other comment, from the *math alone* we simply don’t know)? Does red somehow confuse other drivers into making mistakes? Do certain common wild animals not see red at all, causing the larger numbers to be from roadkill accidents(which if we correct for, we find that in cities red cars are again no different)?
The key is that *we don’t know* from the math alone. There *IS* a cause clearly(unless whoever made the statistics botched something), but unless we find out what it is, we can’t know if any one case is at risk without knowing if the underlying condition applies to it.
I heard that claim back in the 70s when I was learning to drive. The reasoning I was given (which may be wildly incorrect) was that high-performance cars commonly came in red, cars like Lamborghinis, Ferraris, etc. People in high-performance cars tend to drive like they’re in high-performance cars, i.e., recklessly. Also, red cars were (supposedly) easier for cops to see and write tickets to.
In real life, I don’t see why a car’s color would influence the number of wrecks. And as far as tickets go, nowadays the cop catches you on radar long before he can tell what color your car is.
I’d like to see some actual statistics on car colors vs wreck frequency. Assuming that those statistics exist and red is more dangerous, do the numbers change at night when car colors aren’t as obvious?
—
Edit: I’ve been around a lot of school buses as a driver, driver trainer, and mechanic. The school bus yellow color was chosen for maximum visibility under the widest range of conditions. For example, black is easier to see in the snow than white is and white is easier to see at night compared to black. School bus yellow is visible in bright daylight, at night, in the fog and rain, in the snow, etc.
—
Edit 2: Apparently, I’m full of shit. I found a study by the Monash University Accident Research Centre (Australia) that shows that different colors have different crash rates. Color does matter, but black is the most dangerous while white is the safest and red is in between. The study also answered my day vs night question.
https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/216475/An-investigation-into-the-relationship-between-vehicle-colour-and-crash-risk.pdf
I heard that claim back in the 70s when I was learning to drive. The reasoning I was given (which may be wildly incorrect) was that high-performance cars commonly came in red, cars like Lamborghinis, Ferraris, etc. People in high-performance cars tend to drive like they’re in high-performance cars, i.e., recklessly. Also, red cars were (supposedly) easier for cops to see and write tickets to.
In real life, I don’t see why a car’s color would influence the number of wrecks. And as far as tickets go, nowadays the cop catches you on radar long before he can tell what color your car is.
I’d like to see some actual statistics on car colors vs wreck frequency. Assuming that those statistics exist and red is more dangerous, do the numbers change at night when car colors aren’t as obvious?
—
Edit: I’ve been around a lot of school buses as a driver, driver trainer, and mechanic. The school bus yellow color was chosen for maximum visibility under the widest range of conditions. For example, black is easier to see in the snow than white is and white is easier to see at night compared to black. School bus yellow is visible in bright daylight, at night, in the fog and rain, in the snow, etc.
—
Edit 2: Apparently, I’m full of shit. I found a study by the Monash University Accident Research Centre (Australia) that shows that different colors have different crash rates. Color does matter, but black is the most dangerous while white is the safest and red is in between. The study also answered my day vs night question.
https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/216475/An-investigation-into-the-relationship-between-vehicle-colour-and-crash-risk.pdf
I heard that claim back in the 70s when I was learning to drive. The reasoning I was given (which may be wildly incorrect) was that high-performance cars commonly came in red, cars like Lamborghinis, Ferraris, etc. People in high-performance cars tend to drive like they’re in high-performance cars, i.e., recklessly. Also, red cars were (supposedly) easier for cops to see and write tickets to.
In real life, I don’t see why a car’s color would influence the number of wrecks. And as far as tickets go, nowadays the cop catches you on radar long before he can tell what color your car is.
I’d like to see some actual statistics on car colors vs wreck frequency. Assuming that those statistics exist and red is more dangerous, do the numbers change at night when car colors aren’t as obvious?
—
Edit: I’ve been around a lot of school buses as a driver, driver trainer, and mechanic. The school bus yellow color was chosen for maximum visibility under the widest range of conditions. For example, black is easier to see in the snow than white is and white is easier to see at night compared to black. School bus yellow is visible in bright daylight, at night, in the fog and rain, in the snow, etc.
—
Edit 2: Apparently, I’m full of shit. I found a study by the Monash University Accident Research Centre (Australia) that shows that different colors have different crash rates. Color does matter, but black is the most dangerous while white is the safest and red is in between. The study also answered my day vs night question.
https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/216475/An-investigation-into-the-relationship-between-vehicle-colour-and-crash-risk.pdf
>Edit to clarify my question: does the statistic that “red cars have more accidents” translate to the statement that “I, personally, all other things being equal, am more likely to have an accident if I drive a red car than a blue one”?
No. It could easily be the case that people who drive faster tend to buy red cars, or that car models that are more accident-prone tend to be red. It’s worth noting that most major car insurers (in the United States at least) do not charge different premiums based on car color, because any significant difference in risk by color is explained by other, more reliable metrics, like age of the driver and the model of the car.
If someone who knows what they’re talking about knows of a major insurer who rates on car color and can point to a filing on SERFF to show that, I’d be curious to know. I haven’t seen it. Google shows some claims about it from some rinky-dink law partnerships, and there are some amateur studies that claim to find a difference, but the insurers have all the good data on this and if they aren’t rating on car color, then it’s not a significant causal factor in driving safety.
Latest Answers