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 not exactly math but is related to formal logic, and specifically a phenomena that is very important in science and politics. It is important to distinguish correlation and causality. Correlation is when two variables have some sort of relation. In your case it is the color of the car and the chance of getting into an accident. Causality is when one thing causes something else. You are reading this correlation as if the color of the car causes the car to be involved in an accident, but this is not always the case. Correlation does not mean there is a causality. It could easily be that people who buy red cars are the same type of people who are often involved in traffic accidents. But the statement does not specify if this is the case or not.
There are several ways of finding causality once you have found a correlation. You could collect more data to try to find more correlations, for example if you find out that a certain population group are correlated with both red cars and traffic accidents even ignoring the red cars that are in traffic accidents then you have a causality. Or you could try to manipulate one of the variables, for example would banning red cars reduce traffic accidents? If not then there is no causality.
This is not exactly math but is related to formal logic, and specifically a phenomena that is very important in science and politics. It is important to distinguish correlation and causality. Correlation is when two variables have some sort of relation. In your case it is the color of the car and the chance of getting into an accident. Causality is when one thing causes something else. You are reading this correlation as if the color of the car causes the car to be involved in an accident, but this is not always the case. Correlation does not mean there is a causality. It could easily be that people who buy red cars are the same type of people who are often involved in traffic accidents. But the statement does not specify if this is the case or not.
There are several ways of finding causality once you have found a correlation. You could collect more data to try to find more correlations, for example if you find out that a certain population group are correlated with both red cars and traffic accidents even ignoring the red cars that are in traffic accidents then you have a causality. Or you could try to manipulate one of the variables, for example would banning red cars reduce traffic accidents? If not then there is no causality.
It would be great to hear from an insurance person, but according to the person who presented to my university class a decade ago, it’s about the person who chooses to drive a red vehicle.
The way he explained it, there is a correlation between choosing to drive a red vehicle and accidents. So, their insurance is higher. The general idea is that people driving red cars drive faster and are more reckless. But it’s all about the person who chooses red, not the vehicle color itself resulting in more accidents.
Downside is being a person who drives a red vehicle because it’s easier to find with the bright and less common color.
Edit: see comment for actual knowledgeable person below, vehicle color isn’t factored into price of insurance.
It would be great to hear from an insurance person, but according to the person who presented to my university class a decade ago, it’s about the person who chooses to drive a red vehicle.
The way he explained it, there is a correlation between choosing to drive a red vehicle and accidents. So, their insurance is higher. The general idea is that people driving red cars drive faster and are more reckless. But it’s all about the person who chooses red, not the vehicle color itself resulting in more accidents.
Downside is being a person who drives a red vehicle because it’s easier to find with the bright and less common color.
Edit: see comment for actual knowledgeable person below, vehicle color isn’t factored into price of insurance.
It would be great to hear from an insurance person, but according to the person who presented to my university class a decade ago, it’s about the person who chooses to drive a red vehicle.
The way he explained it, there is a correlation between choosing to drive a red vehicle and accidents. So, their insurance is higher. The general idea is that people driving red cars drive faster and are more reckless. But it’s all about the person who chooses red, not the vehicle color itself resulting in more accidents.
Downside is being a person who drives a red vehicle because it’s easier to find with the bright and less common color.
Edit: see comment for actual knowledgeable person below, vehicle color isn’t factored into price of insurance.
This is a perfect example to use to explain the difference between Correlation- when things happen at the same time; and Causation- when things directly cause other things to happen.
Just because two things show up together does not necessarily mean that one **made** the other happen.
There may or may not be a causal link between the events.
This is a perfect example to use to explain the difference between Correlation- when things happen at the same time; and Causation- when things directly cause other things to happen.
Just because two things show up together does not necessarily mean that one **made** the other happen.
There may or may not be a causal link between the events.
This is a perfect example to use to explain the difference between Correlation- when things happen at the same time; and Causation- when things directly cause other things to happen.
Just because two things show up together does not necessarily mean that one **made** the other happen.
There may or may not be a causal link between the events.
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.
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