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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a “correlation is not the same as causation” issue.
Correlation: “Red cars have more accidents than other colored cars” is not the same as Causation “Red color cars are more likely to blind oncoming drivers that can result in accidents” (hypothetical for example).
You have to understand the actual causation before you can conclude if you, personally, are at greater risk if you drive a red car.
Here are some hypothetical causes that may or may not result in you, personally, having a greater risk of an accident:
* people with more reckless driving behaviors are attracted to red cars
* red is a more popular color for car models that lack safety features
* red cars are more difficult to see in some common driving situation
* Animals such as deer may have more difficulty seeing red cars
* …
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.
Statistically, yellow cars have less accidents.
Followed by colored ones like red, green, blue(light blue I guess). And white cars are just above this or below, I can’t remember.
The worse are of course dark grey and black.
It all comes to visibility, the easier to spot the easier to avoid to collide with.
Idk what statistic someone is using on you but it doesn’t make sense.
Seems to me the only explaination is that they are comparing pears and apples: for example if in your sample all the sport cars are red, of course red is going to have more accidents. But at that point, statistically it doesn’t make sense. You compare car types, or colors between same car type, and so on. Seems who made that statistic is lazy.
Anyway, yes the statistic suggests that if you drive a safe color you will be spotted better:
Preventing people to cut you cause they didn’t see you.
Allowing people to dodge a bad maneuver of yours because they see it coming sooner.
So yes you are safer in a safer color. In magnitude, we are talking of small numbers, like plus or minus 10% maximum.
Doesn’t make sense to me an assurance company use this logic. Should be the opposite, the more bright cars around the less accidents. What this mindset will do is to shift bad drivers to non-red colors until the statistics change and then chase the data forever as every action will just change the problem’s container, and never solve it.
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.
This is a “correlation is not the same as causation” issue.
Correlation: “Red cars have more accidents than other colored cars” is not the same as Causation “Red color cars are more likely to blind oncoming drivers that can result in accidents” (hypothetical for example).
You have to understand the actual causation before you can conclude if you, personally, are at greater risk if you drive a red car.
Here are some hypothetical causes that may or may not result in you, personally, having a greater risk of an accident:
* people with more reckless driving behaviors are attracted to red cars
* red is a more popular color for car models that lack safety features
* red cars are more difficult to see in some common driving situation
* Animals such as deer may have more difficulty seeing red cars
* …
The color isn’t the issue, it’s merely an indirect reflection of issues that ARE directly associated with an increased likelihood of an accident. If we take 1,000 folks who drive poorly but “safely,” 1,000 who drive competently and don’t have accidents, and 1,000 folks who drive aggressively, which group would seem to be most likely to have a higher rate of accidents?
It seems likely it is the last group. NOW in each group what color cars do the groups tend to buy? If more aggressive drivers tend to buy more red cars (or relaxed accident avoiding drivers buy less red cars), then red cars will look like a risk factor for an accident. It IS, but not because of the color.
Latest Answers