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
This is a “correlation is not the same as causation” issue.
Correlation: “Red cars have more accidents than other colored cars” is not the same as Causation “Red color cars are more likely to blind oncoming drivers that can result in accidents” (hypothetical for example).
You have to understand the actual causation before you can conclude if you, personally, are at greater risk if you drive a red car.
Here are some hypothetical causes that may or may not result in you, personally, having a greater risk of an accident:
* people with more reckless driving behaviors are attracted to red cars
* red is a more popular color for car models that lack safety features
* red cars are more difficult to see in some common driving situation
* Animals such as deer may have more difficulty seeing red cars
* …
Latest Answers