Shameless female fare evader gets STUCK under gates while trying to ride San Francisco's BART train for free 24%

By Alexa Cimino16%

7/7/2026, 4:11:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Halo Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 25.8% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 849 faulty-reasoning hits from 477 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.8% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,683 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.20% of the article peer group.

A woman's attempt to sneak into a San Francisco BART station without paying ended in embarrassment after she became trapped beneath one of the transit system's newly installed security gates. 
Footage of the mishap, shared by the Instagram account @bartactivities, shows the woman lying face down on the ground with her upper body wedged beneath the gate as she struggles to free herself. 
The person recording the incident, who appears to be a BART employee, can be heard saying: 'This is terrible.' 
The woman then turns her head to look back at the employee filming her while still pinned beneath the barrier. 
The second BART worker tells her: 'You could have just asked us,' suggesting staff may have been willing to help if she had been unable to pay the fare instead of trying to bypass the gate. 
'Yeah, I know,' the woman replies dejectedly. 
The second employee then says, 'Ah, well, do your thing, ma'am. 
Have a good night,' before walking away from the scene. 
Moments later, the employee filming the incident tells the woman: 'We can't even open it with you there. 
That's the crazy part. 
We can't even open it without harming you,' as she remains stuck beneath the gate. 
The video ends before the woman is freed, and it is unclear how she was eventually removed from beneath the barrier. 
The clip racked up nearly one million views and 1,400 reposts on Instagram, where commenters joked that the new gates appeared to be doing exactly what they were designed to do. 
'It probably would've been easier to just pay the fare,' one person wrote. 
Another quipped: 'The new gates are working as intended.' 
Several commenters also mocked the woman's failed attempt to crawl under the barrier, joking that her backside was to blame. 
'The cake ain't letting it slide,' one person wrote. 
According to SFist, the incident happened at either the Powell Street or the Montgomery Street station in downtown San Francisco. 
BART Director Liz Ames later told NBC she hoped the woman was uninjured but added that she also hoped she was cited for fare evasion. 
Ames said the transit agency's redesigned fare gates have already led to a sharp drop in fare evasion and crime while generating roughly $10 million in additional revenue. 
At that pace, she said, the system's $90 million investment could recover its cost in fewer than 10 years. 
Former BART director Debora Allen also applauded the upgrade, calling it one of the agency's most successful improvements in decades. 
The full-height barriers are being rolled out across the rail network as part of a four-year modernization project designed to stop riders from slipping through or jumping over the old gates. 
The Daily Mail has reached out to BART for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.9%Alexa Cimino: 2.5%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.3%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Alexa Cimino: 1.8%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.7%Alexa Cimino: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias2.7%This article: 4.0%Alexa Cimino: 1.3%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias4.0%This article: 3.8%Alexa Cimino: 7.5%Daily Mail: 9.1%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.5%Alexa Cimino: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias6.5%This article: 4.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect4.0%This article: 5.9%Alexa Cimino: 1.9%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Alexa Cimino: 11.0%Daily Mail: 12.8%Negativity Bias25.8%This article: 5.2%Alexa Cimino: 2.3%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 7.5%Alexa Cimino: 0.7%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error7.5%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Alexa Cimino: 1.7%Daily Mail: 4.6%Halo Effect10.1%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 1.9%Daily Mail: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.4%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Alexa Cimino: 1.3%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem4.2%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Alexa Cimino: 5.6%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.2%Daily Mail: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.9%Alexa Cimino: 1.8%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization6.9%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.5%Alexa Cimino: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon6.5%This article: 9.6%Alexa Cimino: 5.3%Daily Mail: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion9.6%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.9%Alexa Cimino: 2.3%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.9%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 1.3%Daily Mail: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.4%Alexa Cimino: 2.4%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal8.4%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.5%Alexa Cimino: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.5%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.7%Alexa Cimino: 2.2%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote11.7%This article: 7.8%Alexa Cimino: 1.6%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection7.8%This article: 11.5%Alexa Cimino: 5.7%Daily Mail: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexa Cimino: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

477 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers26%attributed speech355writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSFist • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLiz Ames • 25 words • 0.0% coverageLiz Ames • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLiz Ames • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDebora Allen • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Mail • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Liz Ames

100%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words59% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-15.8 ptsWriter: 15.8%Liz Ames: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.5 ptsWriter: 15.5%Liz Ames: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%Liz Ames: 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.