The EU says keep your eyes on the road 64%

By Eric Utter95%

7/10/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26.1% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 868 faulty-reasoning hits from 357 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.8% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,889 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.00% of the article peer group.

The EU recently announced that its new "life-saving systems" for vehicles have gone into effect as of July 7th. 
This mandates that all cars and vans meet requirements for expanded safety glass, new tests for worn tires, emergency brake detections, and most notably, an "advanced driver distraction warning system to keep drivers focused." 
What is this warning system, you ask? 
Welcome to eye-tracking cameras . 
These ADDW systems are required to monitor where the driver is looking at all times . 
According to official EU documents, "The presence of the driver's gaze shall be monitored by the ADDW system in the areas of interest." 
Areas of interest? 
To whom? 
The new rules define "distraction" areas as: the driver's lap, the center console, and behind the driver's seat, among others. 
Republicans recently argued against similar technology being made mandatory in the U.S., including both passive and active monitoring tools, some of which can be powered by artificial intelligence (AI). 
Some officials have been lobbying for these infrared cameras that track a driver's eye movements and pupil dilation, and also for "cockpit-embedded sensors" that would estimate a driver's blood alcohol levels via that person's breath or skin contact. 
What could go wrong? 
EU official: 
Where are your eyes looking? 
Hey, over here! 
Back on the glass directly in front of you! 
Your hand has been in your lap for 45 seconds now, what's up with that? 
Whoa, what's going on in the back seat! 
And what are you drinking? 
Like COVID-19 lockdowns and gun control measures, this is not about safety. 
It is not about where the drivers' eyes are looking. 
It is about the government's eyes on the drivers. 
You and I. 
As with Flock cameras , imbedded chips, digital currency, etc., etc. 
How does it feel knowing Big Brother is focused on you ? 
We have already gone way too far down a road that ought not have been travelled. 
The authorities have every moment of that trip on film. 
And we weren't happy about it. 
They could see it in our eyes . 
Image: Grok, ai-generated illustration 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.2%Eric Utter: 13.1%American Thinker: 10.6%Confirmation Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.4%Eric Utter: 6.3%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic24.4%This article: 3.1%Eric Utter: 0.5%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.4%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Eric Utter: 2.0%American Thinker: 7.1%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.8%Eric Utter: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.8%This article: 4.5%Eric Utter: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 4.5%Eric Utter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.5%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Eric Utter: 5.1%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias3.9%This article: 26.1%Eric Utter: 23.1%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias26.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 2.4%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 4.8%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 1.1%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Eric Utter: 7.9%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 11.2%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 2.0%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Eric Utter: 8.8%American Thinker: 5.6%Ad Hominem3.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 5.7%American Thinker: 4.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.3%Eric Utter: 5.1%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority14.3%This article: 9.5%Eric Utter: 9.5%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma9.5%This article: 10.6%Eric Utter: 8.7%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope10.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.9%Eric Utter: 20.4%American Thinker: 16.8%Hasty Generalization10.9%This article: 8.4%Eric Utter: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring8.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.6%Eric Utter: 20.7%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion12.6%This article: 2.8%Eric Utter: 1.7%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 1.2%American Thinker: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 2.5%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.5%Eric Utter: 8.2%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof11.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.8%Eric Utter: 2.7%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal25.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Eric Utter: 2.1%American Thinker: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 2.2%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Eric Utter: 3.2%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 2.8%Eric Utter: 5.2%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 22.4%Eric Utter: 35.7%American Thinker: 22.9%Biased Writer Voice22.4%This article: 5.0%Eric Utter: 13.0%American Thinker: 5.9%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 8.1%Eric Utter: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.1%This article: 3.4%Eric Utter: 26.4%American Thinker: 14.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Utter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

357 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.4%attributed speech334writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageEU • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

EU

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%EU: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.0 ptsWriter: 24.0%EU: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%EU: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%EU: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%EU: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%EU: 0.0%0.0%

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.