The Rise of Deadly Trucks and S.U.V.s ⁠83%

By Michael H. Keller⁠0% Danielle Ivory⁠0% Irineo Cabreros⁠0% Eli Murray⁠0% Gabriel Blanco⁠0% Joey Sendaydiego⁠0%

6/22/2026, 9:02:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 59.4% saturation with 38 hits. Analysis detected 180 faulty-reasoning hits from 64 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,564 of 20,408 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.50% of the article peer group.

A once-steady decline in pedestrian deaths in the United States has reversed, even as other countries have grown safer. 
Michael Keller, a New York Times investigative reporter, used crash test results, 3-D visibility scans and real-world reconstructions to explore how the boom in taller, heavier trucks and S.U.V.s has changed what happens when a person is struck. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 59.4%Michael H. Keller: 14.8%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic59.4%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Michael H. Keller: 12.9%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect10.9%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 29.7%Michael H. Keller: 7.4%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias29.7%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.7%Michael H. Keller: 7.4%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias29.7%This article: 40.6%Michael H. Keller: 30.5%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias40.6%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 59.4%Michael H. Keller: 44.5%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority59.4%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.9%Michael H. Keller: 2.7%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion10.9%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 40.6%Michael H. Keller: 12.9%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice40.6%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael H. Keller: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

64 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker59%attributed speech26writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Keller • 38 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Keller

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-100.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Michael Keller: 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.