When a rolling ball exits a spiral tube, it typically maintains its final inertial state and travels along straight line in concordance with Newton's first law of motion. Yet, most people predict that the ball will curve, a "naive physics" misconception called the curvilinear impetus (CI) bias. In the current paper, we explore the ecological hypothesis that the CI bias arises from overgeneralization of correct motion of biological agents. Previous research has established that humans curve when exiting a spiral maze, and college students believe this motion is the same for balls and humans. The current paper consists of two follow up experiments. The first experiment tested the exiting behavior of rodents from a spiral rat maze. Though there were weaknesses in design and procedures of the maze, the findings support that rats do not behave like humans who exhibit the CI bias when exiting a spiral maze. These results are consistent with the CI bias being an overgeneralization of human motion, rather than generic biological motion. The second experiment tested physics teachers on their conception of how a humans and balls behave when exiting a spiral tube. Teachers demonstrated correct knowledge of the straight trajectory of a ball, but generalized the ball's behavior to human motion. Thus physics teachers exhibit the opposite bias from college students and presume that all motion is like inanimate motion. This evidence supports that this type of naive physics inertial bias is at least partly due to participants overgeneralizing both inanimate and animate motion to be the same, perhaps in an effort to minimize cognitive reference memory load. In short, physics training appears not to eliminate the bias, but rather to simply shift it from the presumption of stereotypical animate to stereotypical inanimate behavior.