The looming bias describes systematic differences in the perception of looming, approaching stimuli compared to receding stimuli. To date, the most prominent and successful theory to account for this bias is the adaptive bias theory, based on the larger error management theory framework, which argues for a perceptual bias for looming stimuli to err on the side of safety. We challenge this notion by providing evidence using the established probe comparison task of the representational momentum literature which indicates no systematic shift in motion direction for perceived final intensity of looming, approaching stimuli. Across two auditory experiments using either classical sine wave (Experiment 1) or more complex tones (Experiment 2), we replicated findings of no perceived shift in motion direction for approaching stimuli, even when accounting for general, change independent localization biases. We provide an alternative framework, the speed prior account of motion perception, to explain the present, as well as further, currently unexplained findings in the literature.