I wonder if anything happened over the weekend to make Erica C Barnett post something with such an absurd title TWO WEEKS after it happened.

Are there interns digging through news archives to support anti-motorist rhetoric in the Stranger offices?

Of course, if he had been run over by a car, he would have been posthumously cited for blocking the normal flow of gun fire.

American Pine Tree hating gunmen kill cyclists.

Well, that and pit bulls.

Shortly after 5:30 a.m. that morning, when David was only a few blocks from work, witnesses on the residential, tree-lined street say they heard a commotion. The sound of loud voices woke numerous people in the area, and some witnesses reported hearing a heated argument. It was the last time anyone would ever hear David Babcock's voice. One eyewitness saw a dark figure run from the scene, leaving David there to die. At the height of the shouting match, witnesses tell police they heard a gunshot. One eyewitness saw a dark figure run from the scene, leaving David there to die.

While riding down Western Avenue, police say Babcock was stopped by Jones. "I don't know if he tried to get the bike, or if he tried to get something else," says Captain Carroll, "Mr. Babcock put up a fight, and he was shot... Police say Jones took nothing, even leaving the bike at the scene. Then went into hiding... They say he admitted to being a gang member in that area. Also, he may have not wanted anyone unfamiliar on his turf.

Writing "Ride your bike to work... Get shot in the face" implies that he was killed through some sort of act of rage directed at a cyclist, as though "ride your bike" = cause, "get shot in the face" = effect. What if the guy was listening to Crosby, Stills and Nash on his iPod during the incident? Would you draw the parallel of "Listen to Crosby, Stills and Nash... Get shot in the face"? What if he was wearing a yellow sweatshirt? "Wear a yellow sweatshirt... Get shot in the face"?

The fact is, you don't really know why this guy was killed, yet you drew a tenuous conclusion and imply that a cyclist was killed for being a cyclist. That conclusion is not supported by other news reports. Regardless, I would hope that you wouldn't take the opportunity to use a poor man's murder to make some kind of point for your cause. It's misleading, and frankly insensitive to the victim's family.

to the skeptics: the hostility is real, the menace is real, and the physics are real. i don't know how this man died. i know how it feels to be menaced by cars and trucks at high speeds, with no cage. so far as i know, i have every right to the road. they claim different. but they don't stop there.

one killed, one tractioned at u bridge
vs. I GOT RESERVATIONS

u run a guy over w/ ur car because ur 'freaking out' and i forgive you, but i am not like you. what's the fucking hassle with waiting a minute or two? for me or any other traffic. i move fast, fast enough to die. and you have a big, fat truck n ass. how come you can wave your weapon at me, but i can't squeeze a warning shot back? because we live as unequals in concrete canyons only a while past wild, and people who look for respect on their bikes haven't ridden long enough.

There is no car-bicycle altercation here that I can see. Or are you trying to assert here that cyclists are being killed by pedestrians who don't want to share the pavement with them now too? Is that it?

Maybe if we just realized that some people at some daily papers are frustrated that people don't like their ideas of banning plastic bags, they might realize that getting all hot and bothered about cycling is as productive as honking in a traffic jam on the "freeway".

Every bike is $20,000 out of their pockets.