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.
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.
In the UK at least, 30-odd years ago I believe red cars were involved in more, or more-severe accidents, and the insurance premiums reflected that.
The effect would be found in the insurance statistics, but I think the hypothetical explanation is that the type of people who tended to choose red cars were a higher risk. i.e. the chosen colour is a marker or proxy for the driver-attitude and hence risk. Obviously it’s only a statistical correlation, and doesn’t imply anything about individual drivers.
More recently, I think the effect is much less significant, and insurance premiums don’t seem to be noticeably different for red cars (go to an insurance quote site and play with the numbers)…
There are also a lot fewer red cars on the road now than there used to be. There’s a lot of boring metallic-blues and metallic-greys! Fashions change.
Maybe people that like red cars also like reckless driving?
In the UK at least, 30-odd years ago I believe red cars were involved in more, or more-severe accidents, and the insurance premiums reflected that.
The effect would be found in the insurance statistics, but I think the hypothetical explanation is that the type of people who tended to choose red cars were a higher risk. i.e. the chosen colour is a marker or proxy for the driver-attitude and hence risk. Obviously it’s only a statistical correlation, and doesn’t imply anything about individual drivers.
More recently, I think the effect is much less significant, and insurance premiums don’t seem to be noticeably different for red cars (go to an insurance quote site and play with the numbers)…
There are also a lot fewer red cars on the road now than there used to be. There’s a lot of boring metallic-blues and metallic-greys! Fashions change.
Maybe people that like red cars also like reckless driving?
Maybe people that like red cars also like reckless driving?
Insurance works on averages – on average there are enough customers paying for insurance and not claiming anything back to cover for the customers who do make claims.
The thing is, this penalises good, safe drivers.
On average teenagers will have more accidents than middle aged people.
On average people that commute daily will have more accidents than those who only drive for personal reasons at the weekend.
On average people who park their cars on a public road will make more claims than those who keep their car in a garage.
So combine all of these, and it seems a bit unfair that the middle aged, weekend driver who keeps their car in a garage will be paying as much as the much riskier teenage, street parked commuter. So the insurance companies adjust their prices so that the average responsible driver pays less for their insurance than the riskier drivers do.
Obviously this can be considered on a very basic level, or taken to a huge depth to tailor insurance premiums. Engineers are safer drivers than salesmen. X area is safer than Y area. People who buy red cars tend to be more dangerous than those who buy grey cars…
So when they say ‘red cars are in more accidents’, what they are talking about are the average characteristics – that the sort of people who like bright, attention grabbing red cars are also the same people who drive more aggressively.
It doesn’t mean that you personally are any more likely to be in an accident – after all not ever driver of a red car is an aggressive one, and aggressive drivers will also be found in other colours of vehicle, but on average the percentage of red cars ending up in accidents is higher than other colours.
Unless you are paying attention and actively counter the behavior, you tend to drive in the direction you are looking. Red cars (and IMO bright yellow) attract other drivers attention easier, so other drivers tend to aim for you more. Then add in the average drivers skill and attention level, and they hit bright colored cars more often.
You could also argue more accidents can happen on a black car since you would be less visible at night.
Latest Answers