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
Let’s change a bit interpretation from the rest of the comments.
Statistics is the discipline that concerns the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. (Straight from wiki)
So there is *evidence* that there are more accidents involving red cars.
Then there is the most important bit of words that you can ever expect to know: **correlation doesn’t mean causation**
Just because data tells us that red has greatest probability, it doesnt tell us *why*
Maybe there are more red cars , maybe red cars are easyer to hit, maybe only crazy mofos buy red cars, maybe red paint causes sleepyness… Currently we are missing a piece of the puzzle!
Since I don’t know the underlying reason that makes red cars more prone to accidents *i can’t tell* wether being in a red car makes it inherently more risky.
I am pretty confident that red paint does not have unexpected properties in terms of visibility, or sleepyness, and I hope that you are not a crazy driver, so **it is reasonable to expect** that being in a red car does not make you *inherently* more prone to accidents than any other colored car.
Latest Answers