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 math, or actuarial science, behind it is largely statistics and probability estimation.
If the statistics show that red cars are more often involved in accidents, then yes, the estimate is that you do have a higher probability of being in an accident if you’re in a red car.
It’s still just a probability estimate, not a certainty or guarantee. And it’s based on statistical evidence, not logical reasoning based on causes.
Latest Answers