Yes, you were wrong. Almost everywhere requires pedestrians to use a sidewalk if one is present. In fact, a police officer can write you a ticket.

There have been a few threads on here about it. For example :

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6832306#p6832306

Not sure about etiquette but my thoughts are you shouldn’t be in the bike lane if there is a sidewalk that’s available, and clear of snow.

Generally it's a no. The bike lane is a dedicated lane for non-motorized vehicles. You are considered a pedestrian, regardless of speed, and belong in a lane dedicated to pedestrians.

---

Level II USAT Coach | Level 3 USAC Coach | NASM-CPT
Team Zoot | Tailwind Trailblazer
I can tell you why you're sick, I just can't write you an Rx

Were you running with or against traffic? You said the bike came up behind you, so it sounds like you were running with the traffic. I will run in the bike lane occasionally, but always against traffic and if a bike comes I jump up on the sidewalk, grass, curb, etc to get out of the way.

In general, runners should probably be using the sidewalk, but I treat it as a bit of a judgement call. If it is a busy road with a bike lane, I stay out of it. If it is a small neighborhood with a bunch of dog walkers and strollers on the sidewalk, I will use the bike lane to run.

Yes, this is the way to go. I do this on my run commute and it seems to work out for everyone.

I agree with the other posts so far. Even if the route is busy, there's no right to run unimpeded, just have to deal with it or find a new route.

+1
Run against traffic in the bike lane so you can get out of the way of the vehicles that the lane is designed for. If you stay in the lane when bikes go by, you are forcing them to go into traffic to pass you. That can have some very negative outcomes.

---

Oui, mais pas de femme toute de suite (yes, but I am not ready for a woman straight away) -Stephen Roche's reply when asked whether he was okay after collapsing at the finish in the La Plagne stage of the 1987 Tour

If it was Raleigh, I’ve yelled at a runner before for doing this.

The last thing I need is to be pushed into traffic because a runner takes up my legal lane thus endangering me.

More often than not when it happens they see me coming, with front light on, and still don’t move.

It’s illegal and it’s dangerous. Don’t risk my life because you can’t run on the “harder” sidewalk for 25 yards as we pass.

Let common sense rule. At home, there are sidewalks that I can use vs. running in the bike lanes. (It makes me a little cranky when I'm on my bike and a couple of folks are jogging side by side in the bike lanes here. A single runner staying way to the right side of the bike lane isn't a big deal, though.) But I was visiting in Oakland, CA, and there were places (e.g. Broadway up to Lake Temescal) where the sidewalks were effectively nonexistent. They had a nice bike lane, and I'd run in it, but I'd hop up onto the curb when a cyclist was coming. Everyone seemed pretty chill with that.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

When they start holding races on sidewalks then I’ll start training on sidewalks; otherwise, running in bike lane or on street is perfectly legal in California, but commonly misunderstood not to be.

I disagree with most posters here.

I believe that right of way should usually go to those moving forward with the greatest intensity.

And sidewalks are not a reasonable (or safe) place to run in many, many places.

It is not possible to judge the intensity of cyclist or cars coming from behind.

It is necessary to run against traffic (if you are not on the sidewalk.

The Bike Lane is not for pedestrians.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Nobody can stop anyone from doing what they want.

With that being said, people who decide to run in bike lanes (or run on the road) when sidewalks are available shouldn't complain if they get buzzed, hit, etc

X 3 or whatever. I find all it takes is a little courtesy and not forcing cyclists out of the bike lane and into traffic, even if that means pausing the run for the 2 seconds it takes us to pass eachothet

As long as you were running against traffic in the bike lane so you can step up on the curb if bikers are coming towards you, then no, you aren't wrong. I've been running that way for four plus decades now. When sidewalks are constructed of asphalt instead of concrete - very rare - then that's where I run.

Exactly, walkers should use the sideWALK.

And sidewalks are not a reasonable (or safe) place to run in many, many places.

------

Say what??

ETA: I'd say they are much safer than running with traffic in bike lane. I thought it was common knowledge to always run against traffic w/ running and bike w/ traffic while biking on the "roads".

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

People running in the bike lane when there is an uncontested sidewalk parallel to the road drives me bonkers. I ALWAYS run on the sidewalk if there is one (unless in the city where it's so crowded that you have to run in the street). I nearly hit one guy running towards me in the bike lane last week at night, because he wasn't wearing any reflective clothing. Ironically, he yelled something about my headlight being too bright, which thankfully allowed me to quickly glance and ensure it was safe enough to get into the road.

I've run thousands of miles on country roads with no sidewalk, so I'm so thankful when there is one. Please stay out of the bike lane when possible.

---

"Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps"
Blog = http://extrememomentum.com|Photos = http://wheelgoodphotos.com

With regard to always running against traffic, i dont always agree it is the safest option. Specifically on winding roads with no shoulder, i will switch to with traffic if against traffic means running the inside of a blind turn with nowhere to go (after making sure it is clear). I almost got run over by not doing this before.

I don't mind but if I'm coming they need to f'n move. Once I'm past they can resume on the bike lane. The Bike lane is for bikes.

+1

Here in Santa Monica I will use the Bike Lane running west along San Vicente, always AGAINST traffic and yield/ jump out of the way when the cyclist come through.

I'd use the sidewalk (and do on the way back) because its a separated roadway (east/ west) and the drivers on side streets REFUSE to look to their right for pedestrians and more times than not roll through the stop signs on their way to turn left. Way too many close calls, thus I'll use the bike lane

You were wrong.

You're telling me you've never had a run course go onto a golf course cart path?

---

Chasing PB Podcast Latest interview with Eli Hemming on Targeting a US MTR spot in Tokyo

I don’t know where you’ve been golfing but cart paths are generally not like sidewalk concrete (same psi, joints, driveways, curbs, etc), nor are they generally part of a certified race course. But I’m sure you can come up with an example of one so you can continue missing the larger point.

Remind me how many miles pro marathoners will train on the road vs on trail, treadmill or track when they race entirely on roads?

---

Chasing PB Podcast Latest interview with Eli Hemming on Targeting a US MTR spot in Tokyo

You mean how many miles they train on sidelwaks. That is the issue.

Altough for any post I’ve ever seen on social media, or any pro I follow on Strava, I’ve never seen a sidewalk as part of their training.

I will run in the bike lane or on the road going against traffic and if I see a bike or car coming at me, I get the f out of the way.

I'm with this. You can lecture me on your rights, but end of day if something is hurtling at you the law isn't gonna stop you from getting wrecked

---

Chasing PB Podcast Latest interview with Eli Hemming on Targeting a US MTR spot in Tokyo

It really isn't the issue, it's about surface you train on, but whatever. I'm not against avoiding sidewalks for the fact concrete is harsher on joints, that sidewalks tend to have more imperfections (at least where I've lived) and I have bad ankles, but doing it for "race prep" is a relatively moot point against others. I wish I had good sidewalks to run on - I've got 3 km of brick pavers I have to clear before I get to a rural road on my usual out and back. Way worse than concrete imo

---

Chasing PB Podcast Latest interview with Eli Hemming on Targeting a US MTR spot in Tokyo

It would blow their minds to know that something like cross-country and trail running exists.

Also, while the whole concrete vs. asphalt thing IS true about the COR......that's not how it works when you've got springs in series. One person running in a Vaporfly 4% on asphalt is probably worse than I would be in my really cushy Adidas shoes on the sidewalk.

The issue with sidewalks and serious folks is that unless you want to get really bored, those folks are running lots of miles. And sidewalk running is often pretty boring in terms of how it limits a route.

I have a paved greenway behind my house and choose to use that.

The posts by "seeyouincourt" in this topic don't really match well given the username choice.

The original poster said, “I went on a long run the other day and was running in the bike lane rather than on the concrete sidewalk,” so it kind of seems like that framed the issue. Plus I quipped about races not being on sidewalks and it being perfectly legal in CA to run on street, so also trying to stay on point there.

As for running on the road not being good race prep, I’ve only done road marathons, so running on the road seems pretty race specific. Naturally I mix things up with trails, but I get to those trails on the road, which I’m running on. As much as I like my Peloton I’m certainly not doing 10, 12, 16 milers on a treadmill, nor can I go round and round on a track for over an hour. If that’s what the pros are doing then more power to them. I also don’t zwift for hours on end either but instead do long rides outside. This may be why I’m not a great athlete.

i love this thought that many runners have: that somehow not running on concrete will save you from impact stress. how many miles do you run a week? 30? 50? i mean come on. running on asphalt vs. concrete is just a placebo effect that has no real grounding in science for most of us amateur runners. now, you start running 10+ hours a week and i'll give you a nod.

jkhayc wrote:

i love this thought that many runners have: that somehow not running on concrete will save you from impact stress. how many miles do you run a week? 30? 50? i mean come on. running on asphalt vs. concrete is just a placebo effect that has no real grounding in science for most of us amateur runners. now, you start running 10+ hours a week and i'll give you a nod.

https://www.hillrunner.com/jim2/id27.html

I have another reason I try to run on the street/bike lanes if they are accessible and that is because there is rarely a sidewalk that is close to even without and cracks and big sections taken out. And with the winter rarely do people shovel. But like a post above said if I am ever running in a bike lane, against traffic, and I see a cyclist I get on the grass to get out of the way.

Also, didn't someone do a "study" and post in on here about how little of a difference there really was between concrete and asphalt?

---

Twitter - Instagram

you're gonna use "jim's running page" as evidence? mmk.

So tons of people pass you without incidence and one shows a little displeasure and your gut reaction is to be pissed off by that? Maybe grow some thicker skin, you can't please everybody.
Apart from that, if it will be accepted by most people depends on the local situation. Space, general attitude, underground of bike lane and pedestrian path etc.

jkhayc wrote:

you're gonna use "jim's running page" as evidence? mmk.

Would a PHD fit your bill better?

https://www.slowtwitch.com/...VvzdPuFt-ROO40O2peks

yea, i remember reading that. did you?

PHD wrote:

So I might as well let you know up front that the hardness difference between concrete and asphalt is insignificant when running in shoes, because the cushioning afforded by shoes far exceeds any cushioning provided by those surfaces.

Quote:

and in researching this article, it became clear that some runners are convinced they can sense the impact difference between concrete and asphalt

tl;dr

If you convince yourself that something is true, it likely will be...for you. Objectively, there is no material difference between running on concrete and running on asphalt.

I like, like this commenter, notice:


A road's crown does far more damage to me (mentally, anyway) than does the alleged stress of running on concrete.

Apparently not well enough. :)

Don’t care about impact stress. I do care that roads are basically flat mile after mile and sidewalks are basically not. Curbs, driveways, cracks, etc.

I run against traffic in the bike lanes. I'll jump to the sidewalk if necessary to avoid bikes. Typically, the sidewalks have dog walkers, people walking, kids riding bikes and lots of moms w strollers. It's far easier to run in the bike lane and jump to the sidewalk when cyclists are approaching.

Young's modulus isn't useful in determining the forces in a spring-mass-dashpot system.

Young's modulus has to do with the physical stress/strain curve relationship for elastic and plastic deformation. I really really hope you're not exerting enough force when running to deform the pavement.

You want the differential equations used in mechanical vibrations modeling.

So, you all still don't know what you're talking about.

So instead of that last sentence could you help us out by maybe explaining it in terms regular folks can understand and even better, post a link to something we could look at?

He's probably of similar minds with Ed O'Malley (Row2Tri on ST), who commented on your linked article:

" did not read the papers you referenced, but your description of "hardness" and your use of Young's modulus is incorrect and you are leaving out many critical factors. This does not mean that the conclusion is wrong, but I do not believe the conclusion can be reached given the analysis provided. Hardness can sometimes, in some materials be approximately related to E, but not always. Hardness instead is measured using a variety of scales determined by empirical measurements, such as Rockwell hardness. These generally involve measuring how far an object made of a certain material in a certain shape depresses into another material when a certain force is applied. Hardness would be an important factor in measuring impact if one was running in track spikes, but it is not likely to be a major factor in normal running shoes. In that case, stiffness, measured by E, is probably an important factor, but knowing E alone cannot tell you how much a material will deflect. First, you must know the dimensions of the material - especially the thickness. Even a very stiff material can flex a lot under a load if the material is thin. Second, we are running on a system of materials, not merely asphalt or concrete alone. You must take the substrate into account. In other words, the dirt it is laid on top of. Finally, in addition to the flex of the material you are running on causing force, there are other factors that can cause discomfort or injury. I would postulate that a surface that does not dampen the vibration from the impact would be more damaging to run on. This is also related to E and I would expect surfaces with a higher modulus to transfer more vibration back into the leg of the runner, but I do not know if it is enough for your average runner to perceive, though I do think I have experienced it.

Ultimately, your conclusion might be right, but just observing that roads are made of "stiff" materials and shoes are "soft" is not enough to reach it."

You could model it in mechanical vibrations as a "spring-mass-dashpot" system.

Imagine your leg to be like the spring/shock absorber system on a car and your body is the mass. That system has a mass, a spring constant for each connected component, and dampening for each component.

Imagine also the car system going over a speed bump and exerting a force into the system.

That's about the easiest to understand I can convey it in relating it to running. The spring constant "K" of the asphalt or concrete or steel plate is going to be extremely similar since it is effectively a rigid body in the system. The shoe, sock, the skin and fat and muscles in your foot, the muscles/tendons and other things up through your leg........they all will have an effective dampening and spring constant.

Those are not rigid. They measurably give.

To have a spring constant to begin with, the item has to deform. You apply force to a spring, it compresses or extends. Same for a shoe, the fat/skin/muscles in your foot, and the muscles and tendons in your leg.

Asphalt and concreted do have a spring constant "K", but it is essentially infinite in both cases. Large forces and minor deformation: F=kx, so k=F/x.......F super large and x is infinitesimally small......so assume infinity.

In the vibrations formulas, the springs in series (your shoes, the surface, your legs/foot/sock) are: 1/keq = 1/k + 1/k.......

If the second "k" is effectively infinite (concrete or aspahalt), the equivalent spring constant is equal to just the spring constant of the rest of the system. One divided by infinity is effectively zero. Complete the equation and you're left with the original spring constant of the rest of the leg/foot/sock/shoe spring constants.

This is why it is nonsense about the asphalt versus concrete.

Thanks guys. I appreciate it. I never thought I would say this but boy I wish I had taken physics in high school. :)

No it's not :rolleyes:

CVC 21966: No pedestrians shall proceed along bike path or lane where there is an adjacent adequate pedestrian facility.

That law has been on the books since 1976!

I don't know where you went to law school or what state you practice law in, but you do not know what you are talking about.

The California Court of Appeals has stated, in 2008, "As to foot passengers, the old common-law freedom of use of the king's highway has not been modified in this state by any positive enactment. So that it still remains the law that foot passengers have the right to use and traverse the highway at all its points, being chargeable only for the exercise of a due amount of care, which due amount of care, in its quantum, is governed by the circumstances attending the use which the pedestrian actually makes.” So that’s the law. There is more than 100 years of published appellate decisions on this going back to at least 1914. In the case that I am referring to, from 2008, the court held that walking down the middle of the road [inside a business or residential district] was lawful conduct.

If the Legislature wants to abrogate the common law when it passes a statute the language or evident purpose of the statute needs to manifest a legislative intent to repeal a common law rule, otherwise there is a presumption against displacement of the common law.

If the Court of Appeals thought Chapter 5 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code “Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties,” which is where you cite from, abrogated the common law then it would have said so. Instead, what the court determined the law of California to be, is that the common law right of freedom of use of the king's highway has not be modified by any statute.

The language of “adequate pedestrian facility” in Vehicle Code 21966 has also been litigated successfully before trial courts. Section 21966 (in the Vehicle Code) by its own terms applies to Class I (bike path) and Class II (bike lane) bikeways, yet a Class I bikeway by statutory language allows a pedestrian (in the Streets and Highways Code).

Run in the bike lane if you want, it is perfectly legal, but don’t be a dick about it.

Nice gatekeeping! Please let me know how many miles a week i need to hit before i can talk about my knees hurting and receive a nod from you. If someone has bad knees they might feel the mileage at 30 while someone else is fine pounding asphalt till 80 mpw.

I agree asphalt vs concrete is a stupud argument and people taking this line would actually benefit by finding some dirt. Surface quality is the only reason i end up in the road when its clear.

...so while in the bike lane are you a "run against traffic" or "run with traffic" person?

Against of course. Almost always. I like to be able to get out of the way of a car, or occasional cyclist, but then my running group starts at 6 am, and there are not a lot of cars or bikes to worry about in the early morning. If I am running from the office or from home later in the day, the dirt trial or rec trail are within a mile or so and I'm usually on that route.

Really? You can tell me the differences in 'hardness' and psi between golf cart concrete and sidewalk concrete? Or the difference between asphalt and sidewalk concrete? Please.

Oh, and do the IMTX and you'll run primarily on concrete.

You know what I didn't notice on that IMTX run course? Single car driveways that dip to street level every 50-60 feet. And on the waterway path system, I didn't see a lot of driveways, curbs, uneven concrete from cracks and expansion either.

But good on you raising the exception of one to make your point. The whole argument is ruined now.

My points were that the asphalt/concrete hardness differences don't exist and that plenty of races are on concrete: IMTX is one. NYC Marathon has a fair amount of concrete, too. And Vancouver Marathon. So does Seattle. HIM St. George has a fair amount and on and on.

Finally, you cite one case to make your point about the CA pedestrian right-of-way laws. Guess it's ok when you do it, eh?

When that once case is the latest published decision and is consistent with every previously published decision, yes, you can just cite that one. But I also said it was just the latest case, not the only case, and not just one case.

You're now arguing concrete generally to sidewalks specifically (versus the bike lane) which is where the original point was.

He did say he jumps out of the way and runs against traffic.

I'm a crotchety person and even I am not bothered if a runner is well aware and moves. I could care less. Law for them to be there or not.

I've probably said I care in the past, but really, if they move I don't care at all.

Just realize, if it is flat and I'm in the bike lane I'm likely going 25+ if I'm on the TT bike. With the wind one day I was going the speed limit even. The runner will likely die a slow death waiting for help to arrive. I'd rather not see some TT skis skewering a runner.

People have poor expectations of closing speed of bikes, typically assuming slower than actual. Imagining a 10mph beach cruiser coming their way.

You are incorrect. Dan wrote an article on this five years ago. From him: "Mathematically, concrete absorbs 10 times less energy than asphalt at 20°C. " However, he also went on to conclude that " Practically, there is no material difference when one begins to consider the compressibility of the foot and running shoe material..."

Personally, I disagree and believe that while the foot and body can easily absorb the difference in hardness factors between the two, over time extensive running on concrete will take its toll. Avoiding concrete surfaces where I can, when I can, is one of the reasons why I'm still able to run in my 60s despite having started more than 5 decades ago. BTW, I've done IMTX and IMAZ and had 'frodo' feet afterwards to show for the pounding.

Except for the fact that the OP never mentioned being in California---and, you never asked. So, you can't really claim to be TRYING to stay on point, when you give an answer which is specific to a particular locale; and you don't know that to be relevant to the person asking the question.

Perhaps Dan was referring to the solar energy absorbed by asphalt vs. concrete? See below...

References:
http://www.chemcosystems.com/epoxy.html
http://physics.uwstout.edu/...h/tables/cyoungs.htm
Comp. modulus of elasticity, or Young's modulus for materials:
Rubber (average) = .4 (k.p.s.i.)
Composite Asphalt = 380
Wood (compression along grain) = 1,500
Concrete = 4,500
Steel = 30,000

Using these numbers, this is the percentage of energy that is
absorbed by a rubber-based shoe running over each of
these surfaces:
Shoe Surface
Asphalt 99.89% 0.11%
Wood 99.97% 0.03%
Concrete 99.99% 0.01%
Steel >99.99% 0.001%

In running shoes, training on concrete is like adding one
extra stride's worth of shock for every every thousand
strides that you would take on asphalt, or about one stride per mile.
Since the cushioning difference between any two shoe models
is much more that 0.01%, I submit that shoe choice, and not
surface choice, is the only thing that matters for injury prevention
on hard surfaces.

Stop with all this scienthy stuff. I can feel a difference, and that's way more significant that your facths.

Of course there is a difference between the hardness of concrete and asphalt. That's why concrete is used as a building material.

However, the stress impacted into the body is statistically the same:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22897427

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2946394

No, it simply meant that frozen asphalt is much harder than warm asphalt. If it is freezing out there is virtually no difference between running on concrete or tar. Sort of how most people would rather get hit in the face with a cup of water versus an ice cube of similar volume. :)

I highly encourage all my competitors to do 100% of their run training and racing on concrete to test your theory in a longitudinal study.

A particularly poor example. One is solid, and the other is not. Further, both are making direct contact with the face without any cushioning. Thus making it a complete non-sequitor.

"Much harder" is completely dependant upon the instrument used to measure it. A hammer striking both surfaces may be able to detect the difference in hardness. A hammer striking 1/2" of soft foam on top of the asphalt may not be able to discern the difference. Why?

Well, because shock absorbtion is about distributing the strike impulse over time. Mostly what that means is that the surface between the strike implement and the center of the earth compresses, and allows the implement to decelerate over a longer period of time. So, when the hammer strikes the frozen asphalt, maybe it decelerates to 0 in 1ms. Hot summer asphalt, 2ms. That's a pretty big difference for the hammer.

However, when you insert the soft foam...frozen asphalt deceleration time is maybe 50ms. Hot summer asphalt+foam, 50.5ms. So, 99% of the change in deceleration rate is due to the FOAM, and the change in hardness of the asphalt is practically irrelevant (1/100th of the total).

The science backs this up. Your anecdote does not refute anything. You believe it, because you've been told its true. If you run on a concrete surface that's been treated to look like asphalt, you will likely tell us how much better it feels. Conversely, if you run on an asphalt surface that has been treated to look like concrete you will complain about how "painful and hard" that surface is. That's psychology, not physics.

Wow a lot of responses thanks slowtwitch! The location of this run is from Torrey Pines - Solana Beach, in San Diego, CA.

- Yes I was running in the same direction of the traffic and I was on the far right ie the bike lane was clear and there was ample room(think 3 bikes wide could fit)
- Yes there was a sidewalk (had a bunch of people/dogs/strollers and was not a straight sidewalk( kind of like an artsy curvy walk path around trees etc)
- Yes there were other runners in the bike lane so I dont think it is as cut and dry saying no pedestrians in the bike lane

I learned:
- Run opposite flow of traffic
- Grow thick skin: 49/50 people didn't mention anything.


Also I found the person via Strava Flyby and added him as a friend :)

Now THAT is awesome. Well done. Be sure to comment on their ride. "Thanks for the words of encouragement while I was running!"

ETA: yes, any endurance athlete needs to have a thick skin, everywhere. On the bike, on the run...someone will buzz you, yell at you, or something. Most of the time its just crap. But, like this one...occasionally you might learn something. Eg, run against traffic...always, unless there is some really good reason that you can't. In that case, be hyper aware of what's behind you.

Oh, and cement is so much harder than asphalt that its amazing our legs don't fall off when we run on it for 32 seconds.

That’s a great area. From that Hilton at Torrey Pines you can get a great run down to UCSD and loop back up to the State Reserve for some nice trails and then right down onto the beach and jump in some water so warm you don’t need anything more than shorts.

On the outskirts of town in my community, there are no sidewalks, only "multiuse lanes"--which while it does have a picture of a bike at intersections, it isn't a dedicated bike path. Roller skiers, bikers & runners use it. The picture (it's white like the road's shoulder stripe) is there to indicate the cars to basically stay the hell out of that area. Now they've added a second white line (doubles) & are experimenting with other signage.

I run in this multiuse lane all the time. This is legal here. Side roads in neighborhoods as well, as in those areas it is more dangerous to run on the sidewalks 1) people blast out of their driveways in reverse in their near silent electric cars 2) unleashed dogs charge out of the yards sometimes so fast, you couldn't react fast enough with spray. I have run by cops for nearly a quarter century in both directions depending on the obstacles encounters (garbage trucks or construction crew trucks blocking one side for example)...but always run against traffic when I can, never had any issues no matter where you are--I think they're just used to it anyhow.

Every single runner in this town (the pros, Olympians, amateurs) does the same thing when on the outskirts where I run. That said, no way in hell would I run in a bike lane in the actual incorporated city (that is quick way to end yourself)--there are multiuse PATHS and in no way should that be confused with the multiuse LANES on the outskirts of the city.