"I am not driving" is a perfectly good translation of "Non guido". There's nothing in the Italian to indicate a preference for simple present or present continuous in this example. Although "Non sto guidando" is a correct rendering of the present continuous, the Italians use it far less often than we do in English. In fact, "I'm not driving that car" could also be used to imply "there's no way I'm driving that car", in which case, "non sto guidando" wouldn't work. This issue of simple present/present continuous arises in French too. To express the present continuous the French CAN say "je ne suis pas en train de conduire" but they rarely do (unless absolutely pushed). So when a French person say "qu'est-ce que vous faites?", they could be saying "what are you doing (now)" or "what do you do (for a living, for example). The same goes for Italian.
Why, in this instance, is translating "automobile" to "vehicle" not allowed? In other areas I'm penalised for not recognising the difference between automibile (vehicle) and macchina (car). Yet here we're told that automibile as vehicle is not allowed.
It sounds like nonsense unless someone can explain it.
Sometimes it's quite easy to confuse them, for instance Automobile is feminine as I've said but Mobile (which is a single piece of furniture) is masculine. At times there simply is no pattern to follow in order to discern what the gender of a word might be, you simply have to learn them by heart.
"I do not drive that car." is also possible. It does not mean the same thing. It might not be an absolute situation. The car may simply not be my preference. I drive this car. I don't drive that one. It is my habit not to drive that one. I leave it for my spouse to drive.