Windham UTV crash kills 12-year-old, injures 3 5%

By News staff10%

8/1/2026, 9:16:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Framing Effect, and Anchoring Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 27.5% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 104 faulty-reasoning hits from 193 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 13.5% and a BS Rank of 5% (25,498 of 26,585 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.90% of the article peer group.

WINDHAM  A 12-year-old has died and a 10-year-old remains in critical condition after a UTV crash in Maplecrest on Friday. 
The crash happened around 7:55 p.m. when the UTV, driven by a 14-year-old, veered off the left side of a gravel driveway around 84 Route 56 and hit a boulder, according to a news release from the Greene County Sheriff’s Office. 
After the UTV hit a boulder, it rolled on its side, ejecting the 14-year-old driver and three other children riding it. 
None of them were wearing seatbelts or helmets, the sheriff’s office said. 
The 12-year-old and 10-year-old, who were riding on the passenger side, were pinned under the UTV, the sheriff’s office said. 
A neighbor found the children and pulled the UTV off of them using his truck. 
The two children were airlifted to Albany Medical Center, where the 12-year-old was pronounced dead, according to the sheriff’s office. 
The 10-year-old was in critical condition as of Saturday. 
The 14-year-old and an 11-year-old suffered minor injuries and were treated by paramedics at the scene. 
An investigation into the crash is ongoing, the sheriff’s office said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%News staff: 1.7%Times Union: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%News staff: 0.7%Times Union: 0.9%Anchoring Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%News staff: 2.2%Times Union: 1.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 2.7%Times Union: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%News staff: 2.9%Times Union: 2.7%Framing Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%News staff: 10.9%Times Union: 6.3%Negativity Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 1.4%Times Union: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 1.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 4.1%Times Union: 1.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 2.2%Times Union: 1.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.9%News staff: 1.3%Times Union: 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.9%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.7%Times Union: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.5%News staff: 7.6%Times Union: 2.0%Unattributed Quote27.5%This article: 0.0%News staff: 2.2%Times Union: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.5%Times Union: 1.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%News staff: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

193 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker54%attributed speech89writer words
62%flagged-word coverage
104 attributed words100% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote+51.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Greene County Sheriff’s Office: 51.0%51.0%

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.