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
>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