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
I think it came about because insurance companies noticed that red cars got in more accidents than other colours. Nothing to do with it being a common colour either; the odds per vehicle are higher.
(Though some studies have concluded that black is actually worse, some found brown, it varies depending on country, and how you define an accident).
This doesn’t determine cause however.
It could be the type of car; lots of sports cars are red, they get driven fast, they crash more.
It could be visibility, maybe people struggle to see red cars (unlikely, red stands out a lot, but might explain why black and brown are also pretty bad) and hit them.
It might be that risk takers like the colour.
> 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”?
Unknown. Nobody has ever isolated the variables. Its possible that if you gave people identical cars and didn’t let them choose the colour, that the trend would go away. But it’s also possible that it wouldn’t.
Latest Answers