The Drive61%

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

By Andrew P. Collins52%

7/16/2026, 1:07:22 PM

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% (10,818 of 16,550 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.40% 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 
Confirmation Bias
5.5%
Anchoring Bias
0.9%
Availability Heuristic
33.6%
Representativeness Heuristic
9.1%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
15.5%
Loss Aversion
6.8%
Status Quo Bias
11.4%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
18.6%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
18.2%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
9.1%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
11.4%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
5.5%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
4.5%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0.9%
Bandwagon
9.1%
Appeal to Emotion
6.8%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
20.5%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
5%

220 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.