Man struck by car in SoMa Tuesday morning dies in hospital ⁠3%

By Sarah Hopkins⁠15%

7/14/2026, 7:43:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.2% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 221 faulty-reasoning hits from 236 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 13.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠3% (21,370 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.60% of the article peer group.

A man died Tuesday after he was struck by a vehicle in West SoMa in the early morning, according to the San Francisco Police Department. 
The fire department described the incident as a collision involving a bicyclist, while the police department described it as involving a pedestrian. 
Police did not immediately explain the discrepancy. 
The San Francisco Fire Department said emergency crews were dispatched at 4:03 a.m. to Sixth and Tehama after a caller reported a collision involving a bicycle and a vehicle. 
The caller told dispatchers the bicyclist was on the ground and bleeding from the head. 
Firefighters, a paramedic ambulance and a paramedic supervisor arrived at 4:12 a.m. to find police officers already performing CPR, San Francisco Fire Department spokesperson Lt. 
Mariano Elias said. 
Firefighters took over resuscitation efforts before transporting the approximately 50-year-old man to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital at 4:18 a.m. 
Seven fire department personnel responded to the scene. 
Police said officers responded at about 4:07 a.m. to the 200 block of Sixth Street, where they found the injured man and rendered aid until paramedics arrived. 
Despite lifesaving efforts by first responders, he died at the hospital. 
The department’s Traffic Collision Investigation Unit is investigating the incident. 
Police said the driver remained at the scene and is cooperating with investigators. 
Alcohol or drugs do not appear to have been factors. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.5%Sarah Hopkins: 2.4%Mission Local: 2.7%Confirmation Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.7%Mission Local: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Sarah Hopkins: 1.1%Mission Local: 2.9%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.5%Mission Local: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Sarah Hopkins: 1.4%Mission Local: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias4.2%This article: 9.3%Sarah Hopkins: 4.1%Mission Local: 4.7%Framing Effect9.3%This article: 4.7%Sarah Hopkins: 1.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Loss Aversion4.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 3.8%Mission Local: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.3%Mission Local: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Sarah Hopkins: 2.1%Mission Local: 5.9%Negativity Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 1.3%Mission Local: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.7%Mission Local: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.9%Mission Local: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.9%Mission Local: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 1.1%Mission Local: 2.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.6%Mission Local: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.3%Mission Local: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 2.4%Mission Local: 4.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.9%Mission Local: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.4%Sarah Hopkins: 7.5%Mission Local: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion6.4%This article: 4.2%Sarah Hopkins: 0.3%Mission Local: 0.6%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 2.7%Mission Local: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.4%Sarah Hopkins: 1.8%Mission Local: 2.7%Anecdotal6.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Sarah Hopkins: 0.2%Mission Local: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.9%Sarah Hopkins: 1.0%Mission Local: 1.0%Unattributed Quote11.9%This article: 1.3%Sarah Hopkins: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.3%This article: 21.2%Sarah Hopkins: 1.1%Mission Local: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice21.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Hopkins: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

236 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers55%attributed speech107writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Police Department • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Police Department • 7 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Fire Department • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Fire Department spokesperson Lt. • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMariano Elias • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Police Department • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Police Department • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words19% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%San Francisco Fire Department spokesperson Lt.: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%San Francisco Fire Department spokesperson Lt.: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.