KQED⁠79%

More California Kids Are Getting Hurt on E-Bikes, Study Finds ⁠55%

By Scott Shafer⁠99%

7/30/2026, 3:32:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Indoctrination, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 42.4% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 263 faulty-reasoning hits from 139 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (13,517 of 29,510 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.20% of the article peer group.

E-bike crashes and injuries in California are increasing, a new study out of UC San Diego finds. 
And those injuries are not only more severe compared with conventional bikes, they’re disproportionately involving kids age 14 and younger. 
We’ll hear how doctors, lawmakers and biking advocates are responding to the risks posed by e-bikes – and by what some call emotorcycles – and we’ll hear your takes about how we can make our roads safer for all. 
**Guests:** 
* **Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman**, reporter, KQED 
* **Asha Weinstein Agrawal**, professor and researcher, Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University 
* **John Maa, **governor and former president, American College of Surgeons; former trauma surgeon, MarinHealth Medical Center; co-author of the new study from UCSD, “An exponential increase in e-bike injuries in California” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 5.8%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Scott Shafer: 6.4%CalMatters: 2.9%Availability Heuristic12.2%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.2%CalMatters: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.8%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.2%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 42.4%Scott Shafer: 29.8%CalMatters: 6.0%Framing Effect42.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.3%CalMatters: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.8%Scott Shafer: 22.4%CalMatters: 6.2%Negativity Bias33.8%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.8%CalMatters: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.2%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.5%CalMatters: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 4.9%CalMatters: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 6.4%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.4%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.2%CalMatters: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.0%Scott Shafer: 7.6%CalMatters: 3.0%Appeal to Authority23.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.2%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.4%Scott Shafer: 4.1%CalMatters: 3.4%Hasty Generalization14.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.4%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 28.1%Scott Shafer: 8.1%CalMatters: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion28.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.7%CalMatters: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.5%CalMatters: 3.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.8%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.2%Scott Shafer: 20.1%CalMatters: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice7.2%This article: 28.1%Scott Shafer: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.8%Indoctrination28.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.8%CalMatters: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.8%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

139 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech87writer words
Selected voice

John Maa

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words62% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination-44.8 ptsWriter: 44.8%John Maa: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.5 ptsWriter: 11.5%John Maa: 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.