Futurism⁠88%

Amazon’s Robotaxi Company Recalls Its Fleet After One of its Cars Got Confused by Heavy Smoke ⁠58%

By Frank Landymore⁠68%

7/19/2026, 1:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 58.6% saturation with 243 hits. Analysis detected 740 faulty-reasoning hits from 415 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (8,600 of 20,497 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.00% of the article peer group.

Zoox, the Amazon-owned robotaxi company, issued a recall after one of its self-driving cars blundered into a cloud of heavy smoke near a fire scene that emergency workers were responding to, and became confused. 
The recall, in the form of a software update, will affect its entire fleet of 105 autonomous robotaxis. 
The patch “enhances the existing capability of detecting active [emergency] scenes by adding the ability to detect and respond to heavy smoke in certain situations,” Zoox told TechCrunch in a statement. 
While you wouldn’t be remiss for thinking this was related to the wildfire smoke covering much of the eastern US right now, the recall highlights how self-driving cars still struggle to respond to unpredictable conditions. 
In a report filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Zoox said that during the June 20 incident, one of its robotaxis “encountered heavy smoke that obscured an active emergency fire scene that was not cordoned off with cones.” 
Though it should have avoided the smoke cloud, the vehicle, which wasn’t carrying any passengers, “braked hard while attempting to steer away before coming to a stop,” the company added. 
Eventually, a teleoperator took over the robotaxi and manually reversed it away from the scene, allowing first responders to place traffic cones to block off two of the three lanes. 
CNBC reported that the incident occurred in Las Vegas, where Zoox is currently offering free rides. 
It’s not the first time robotaxi companies have landed in hot water for impeding emergency responders. 
San Francisco Police were forced to help move immobilized Waymo robotaxis that piled up in roadways in intersections during a city-wide power outage last year. 
Emergency responders complain ed they’d become glorified “roadside assistance” for the vehicles . 
In March, a Waymo robotaxi blocked an ambulance from responding to the scene of a deadly mass shooting in Austin, Texas. 
These mounting incidents led NHTSA administrator Jonathan Morrison to send a strongly-worded letter to robotaxi companies, calling their cars’ interference with emergency responders “unacceptable.” 
“Let me be clear: the inability to detect and appropriately respond to such situations represents a functional insufficiency,” he wrote. 
“Emergency scenes are not rare or extreme ‘edge cases. 
'” 
“To state it bluntly: an AV that cannot safely interact with first responders is a danger to the general public,” he added. 
More on robotaxis: Robotaxis Are Turning Passengers Into Horrible and Entitled Menaces to Society 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 5.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Frank Landymore: 5.4%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic12.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.4%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Frank Landymore: 1.7%Futurism: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias2.2%This article: 8.4%Frank Landymore: 11.0%Futurism: 11.4%Framing Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.3%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 58.6%Frank Landymore: 21.4%Futurism: 22.3%Negativity Bias58.6%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error7.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.8%Futurism: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Frank Landymore: 2.1%Futurism: 2.2%Recency Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.8%Frank Landymore: 5.5%Futurism: 7.0%Appeal to Authority4.8%This article: 5.3%Frank Landymore: 2.4%Futurism: 2.5%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 2.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.2%Frank Landymore: 9.6%Futurism: 10.4%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.7%Frank Landymore: 8.1%Futurism: 9.3%Appeal to Emotion8.7%This article: 2.2%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question2.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 5.0%Futurism: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.2%Frank Landymore: 4.8%Futurism: 4.5%Anecdotal8.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.4%Frank Landymore: 3.1%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.6%Frank Landymore: 4.3%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote10.6%This article: 7.5%Frank Landymore: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection7.5%This article: 15.4%Frank Landymore: 17.7%Futurism: 20.6%Biased Writer Voice15.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.5%

415 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers60%attributed speech164writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageZoox • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageZoox • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageZoox • 40 words • 0.0% coverageZoox • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCNBC • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Police • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Morrison • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Morrison • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Morrison • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Morrison • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jonathan Morrison

100%flagged-word coverage
75 attributed words30% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection+41.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jonathan Morrison: 41.3%41.3%Unattributed Quote-7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%Jonathan Morrison: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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