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
So that sentence is actually incorrect. “The correct sentence is, more accidents happen with red cars”. An important difference. This is the difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because things go together, doesn’t mean one causes the other. In this case, more sport cars are red, sport cars are more likely to be in an accident, so statistically that shows up. Insurance companies work off statistics. A red car does not make it more likely to be in an accident, but if you know a car is red, and nothing else, then chances are higher it will get in an accident.
Latest Answers