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
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.
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.
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.
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.
You could also argue more accidents can happen on a black car since you would be less visible at night.
You could also argue more accidents can happen on a black car since you would be less visible at night.
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.
My suspicion is that people who buy red cars are more likely to be the type of person who likes to drive fast and are flashy. Those characteristics are really what causes the accident rate, not the car itself.
I took an inductive logic class in college and we talked about this. Basically the human brain picks up the color red really easily and interprets it as a danger cue. There have been studies where people try to predict the speed of moving vehicles and we consistently perceive red cars to be moving faster than other colors, even when they aren’t.
Latest Answers