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
The color isn’t the issue, it’s merely an indirect reflection of issues that ARE directly associated with an increased likelihood of an accident. If we take 1,000 folks who drive poorly but “safely,” 1,000 who drive competently and don’t have accidents, and 1,000 folks who drive aggressively, which group would seem to be most likely to have a higher rate of accidents?
It seems likely it is the last group. NOW in each group what color cars do the groups tend to buy? If more aggressive drivers tend to buy more red cars (or relaxed accident avoiding drivers buy less red cars), then red cars will look like a risk factor for an accident. It IS, but not because of the color.
Latest Answers