The Drive⁠37%

VR Is Helping Driving Schools Train Better Instructors: TDS ⁠35%

By Andrew P. Collins⁠15%

7/16/2026, 6:07:22 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Optimism Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 33.6% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 423 faulty-reasoning hits from 220 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠35% (14,391 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.70% of the article peer group.

Welcome to The Downshift, or TDS for short, The Drive’s morning automotive news roundup, bringing you the biggest headlines from around the globe. 
The Downshift sums up stories in short blurbs with links to the source for the full report. 
Here's the news worth catching up on for Thursday, July 16, 2026. 
🎓 A driving school (normal driving, not racing) is using VR headsets to better train its trainers, blurring the line between classroom and in-car training. 
[Reuters] 
🛤️ Footage from the cockpit of a train plowing through Canadian wildfires is absolutely horrifying. 
[AP News] 
💰 The Hyundai Ioniq 5 N is getting $6,300 cheaper—the 2026 model starts at $61,500. 
[Car and Driver] 
⚡ Autocar test-drove a prototype of the Range Rover Sport EV, which is reportedly "coming soon." 
[Autocar] 
👷 Road & Track got to test-drive an odd two-seat cargo/commercial variant of the Toyota Land Cruiser [Road & Track] 
🦘 Australians shared owner experiences and impressions of BYDs, as the Chinese electric cars are soaring in popularity Down Under. 
[Drive.com.au] 
🚙 Infiniti QX80 Red Sport, the brand's upcoming huge high-performance SUV, is being delayed so it can be better dialed in to take on rivals. 
Specifically, Mercedes-AMG. 
[Automotive News] 
Got a tip or feedback for TDS? 
Reach out to tips@thedrive.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.5%Andrew P. Collins: 1.3%The Drive: 3.0%Confirmation Bias5.5%This article: 0.9%Andrew P. Collins: 0.4%The Drive: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.9%This article: 33.6%Andrew P. Collins: 2.9%The Drive: 4.0%Availability Heuristic33.6%This article: 9.1%Andrew P. Collins: 0.9%The Drive: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic9.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.2%The Drive: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.7%The Drive: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Andrew P. Collins: 6.0%The Drive: 4.6%Framing Effect15.5%This article: 6.8%Andrew P. Collins: 0.3%The Drive: 0.8%Loss Aversion6.8%This article: 11.4%Andrew P. Collins: 0.8%The Drive: 0.7%Status Quo Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.6%Andrew P. Collins: 2.5%The Drive: 3.6%Optimism Bias18.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 2.5%The Drive: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%Andrew P. Collins: 5.2%The Drive: 6.7%Negativity Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.3%The Drive: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.9%The Drive: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Andrew P. Collins: 1.5%The Drive: 0.7%In-Group Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Andrew P. Collins: 0.5%The Drive: 2.6%Halo Effect11.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.9%The Drive: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Andrew P. Collins: 0.2%The Drive: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.3%The Drive: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.4%The Drive: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.5%Andrew P. Collins: 1.6%The Drive: 3.4%Appeal to Authority4.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 1.9%The Drive: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 2.1%The Drive: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 4.2%The Drive: 6.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.9%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.3%Red Herring0.9%This article: 9.1%Andrew P. Collins: 0.3%The Drive: 0.9%Bandwagon9.1%This article: 6.8%Andrew P. Collins: 3.3%The Drive: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion6.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.1%The Drive: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 1.1%The Drive: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.5%The Drive: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.1%The Drive: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.5%Andrew P. Collins: 4.7%The Drive: 3.5%Anecdotal20.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.2%The Drive: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.2%The Drive: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.5%The Drive: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 1.3%The Drive: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 1.0%The Drive: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 9.6%The Drive: 11.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 4.0%The Drive: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew P. Collins: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Andrew P. Collins: 2.7%The Drive: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.0%

220 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers4.5%attributed speech210writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageReuters • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAP News • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageCar and Driver • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAutocar • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDrive.com.au • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageAutomotive News • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Car and Driver

100%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words30% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Car and Driver: 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.