Novato crash, fire, downed power lines affect US Highway 101 ⁠1%

By KTVU Staff⁠9%

7/30/2026, 10:05:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Halo Effect, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 23.2% saturation with 42 hits. Analysis detected 155 faulty-reasoning hits from 181 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (28,772 of 28,842 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.80% of the article peer group.

An elderly woman driving a white Jeep hit a power pole, which came down and started a small brush fire on Thursday morning, affecting traffic on US Highway 101 near Highway 37 for roughly two hours, according to the California Highway Patrol. 
The woman suffered minor injuries, and it wasn't clear what caused her to veer into a power pole about 9:30 a.m. along the highway, officials said. 
Novato police said that the interchange was closed in both directions at South Novato Boulevard because of the crash and small brush fire. 
In addition, PG&E said that more than 6,000 customers were without power as a result of the downed power line. 
All lanes of US Highway 101 reopened about 11 a.m., according to the CHP. 
SkyFox flew overhead, showing aerials of long lines of traffic and fire crews hacking away at the long grass. 
The white Jeep was spotted off to the side, left abandoned amidst some charred grass and downed lines. 
A tow truck cleared the scene about 11:30 a.m. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.8%KTVU: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.1%KTVU: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.2%KTVU Staff: 3.8%KTVU: 2.3%Availability Heuristic23.2%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.2%KTVU: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%KTVU Staff: 2.3%KTVU: 3.3%Framing Effect14.4%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.8%KTVU: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.2%KTVU: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.3%KTVU: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.3%KTVU: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.6%KTVU: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 3.6%KTVU: 4.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error14.4%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.8%KTVU: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.5%KTVU: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%KTVU Staff: 0.8%KTVU: 2.0%Halo Effect10.5%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%KTVU Staff: 0.6%KTVU: 0.9%Recency Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.1%KTVU: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.7%KTVU: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 3.3%KTVU: 2.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.1%KTVU: 2.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.1%KTVU: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.2%KTVU: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.4%KTVU: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.0%KTVU Staff: 0.3%KTVU: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.8%KTVU: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.8%KTVU: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.7%KTVU: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 2.2%KTVU: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.2%KTVU: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.5%KTVU Staff: 1.3%KTVU: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice10.5%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.8%KTVU: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.0%KTVU: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.5%KTVU: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

181 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers65%attributed speech63writer words
Selected voice

SkyFox

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words16% of attributed speech56% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%SkyFox: 100.0%100.0%

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.