Originally Posted by
Maelochs
Maybe that post from you is what made me think you said something about there being a correlation between cause and color. I guess when you said precisely that, I misunderstood.
In any case, I tend to agree with most of what you are saying here ... but I also tend to think not much of what any of is says here, matters.
Kind of funny though ,... insurance companies have the numbers on which cars of which colors are judged responsible for most accidents ... but that wasn't mentioned in the study. If dark cars are involved in more crashes and also cause more crashes ....
The funniest part is the fact that in the UK, most accidents between bikes and cars happen on rural roads int he daytime, so visibility due to color is not an issue ... but i have to wonder is being seen at all----excessive speed on excessively narrow roads, high hedges, many curves and undulations---is responsible for all that.
What I meant was that color
is involved in CAUSING accidents, we just can't say HOW it causes them. (And we know that because the accidents aren't
causing the color - more cars don't become black after being hit.)
Insurance is an interesting thing to bring up. Insurance companies don't care about the underlying cause, they care about the correlation. So if black cars are more likely to require claim payouts, the insurance company may charge a higher premium regardless of why the accidents have a tendency to happen. They are interested in the cause and effect without needing to understand how the cause works. They are a good consumer of this kind of study.
People picking colors for visibility alone are not good consumers of this study.