this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
91 points (88.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

15591 readers
604 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
91
Asphalt, the Antichrist (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 week ago by strop@lemmy.ml to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't see much talk about that self-evident fact. Asphalt sucks in so many ways. What would be a better alternative that needs not worry about cars but mostly bicycles?

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grue@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

Biking on pavement takes less effort, and pavement is also more suitable for things like wheelchairs and strollers.

Paved streets have existed for thousands of years before cars; there's nothing wrong with them in and of themselves. It's building them too wide in order to try to accommodate ever-increasing car traffic that's the problem.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

What the hell are you talking about... Asphalt is such an ideal surface for cycling that it was a national cycling club which started and led the public campaign to make it the default road surface.

Asphalt roads are literally cyclist-gotten gains. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water!

[–] NoodlePoint@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

OP hates cars so much that they even see asphalt as an evil.

[–] strop@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

I sure do but my loathing of asphalt is as sovereign and self-sustainable 👉👈

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sea shells in parks and bricks in denser areas also work pretty well

[–] strop@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

NCC recommends installing devil's horns as a handlebar and bitumen is demons' cum. There's no way around this, infinitesunrise, you maker of arguments™. I'm sorry.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

Noooo I've been used by the devil yet again! Say it ain't so!!

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So what are the ways asphalt sucks in your opinion?
(providing the road is well maintained..)

I have a hard time coming up with road surface types that don't suck more in most aspects.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m more of a titsphault man myself

[–] username_1@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago

Pigeonsphault is more nutritious.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Asphalt is actually pretty cool right? It's resilient and highly reusable as far as I know.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

While more resuable than concrete, the process is very energy intensive and requires bitumen every time. It also doesn't last very long.

[–] pc486@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Bitumen is recyclable, though it isn't nearly as easy as reclaiming the aggregate. And there are techniques where you don't need to expend lots of energy, collectively called "cold in-place recycling."

For example, California's cold recycling program.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Have a look at Dutch streets. Many of them are paved with bricks. It allows rainwater to be absorbed rather than running off causing flooding.

Not Just Bikes did a great video on it a while back.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That doesn't work everywhere. The netherlands doesn't experience too many freeze/thaw cycles and their ground doesn't freeze for half the year.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not being a solution "everywhere" doesn't negate its value, but having lived in the Netherlands and visited Copenhagen myself, I can tell you that paving bricks are applied well in both places and that they hold up just fine against frozen weather.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Is there some kind of drainage system under the bricks? If the ground is frozen, id assume meltwater will collect between and under the bricks.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Absolutely there is. Nobody except ignorant homeowners DIYing a patio ever puts pavers directly on dirt; we've known better than that since at least Roman times, if not earlier.

(source)

It's still done the same way today.

[–] livligkinkajou@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago

Yes, klinkers aren't laid directly on the ground, it usually has a layer of sloped gravel and another layer of sand/fine gravel compacted with a vibrating plate, which prevents water pooling between and beneath them in the first place

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

But isn't asphalt even more susceptible to frost related damage?
I come from an area with both types of road surfaces and the condition of the asphalt is generally much worse after winter.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A massive part of that is water instrusion under the road or into cracks of the surface itself. The frost also expands the underground material sometimes leading to humps on the road that develop to cracks that make the problems worse and worse.

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Exactly.
But so far mainly seen this for asphalt once it is a few years old.
It also is much harder to rectify again for asphalt without tearing it all up and rebuilding it from scratch, leading to the emergency pothole covering cycle of death, ending in the typical uneven patchwork asphalt surfaces l see everywhere.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've seen a lot of brick driveways and patios warp and heave from the winters in my area. The patios aren't built to the standard of a road of course but asphalt driveways do seem to outlast the brick ones. The brick driveways have the same benefit as the road with increased permeability.

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago

The patios aren't built to the standard of a road of course

l guess that's the relevant difference. Brick needs good groundwork and proper drainage.
That's the case for the official brick town roads here, some of which are hundreds of years old. (although these really old ones are not nice to ride with a bike on, rough stones with huge gaps)

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 2 points 1 week ago

It allows rainwater to be absorbed rather than running off causing flooding.

There's an old theater I performed at twice in Southern Ohio. Built before the Civil War, and surrounded by brick buildings, a brick street out front, brick alley, and brick parking lot area.

The second time I was there, the street had been paved, as had the back parking area, and large portion of surrounding alleys. Only the single side alley was still brick.

The first time it rained the week I was there, the basement, while not flooded completely, had so much water running through it to the sunken boiler room, the owners had to toss down some quick 2x4 walkways so nobody was ruining costumes and footwear or slipping and suing. The walls of the basement looked like mini waterfalls.

I popped outside during a lull and the back parking area and alley were basically acting as a funnel, pushing all the water right up to the sides of the building.

I just checked a satellite map view and it looks like they've at least re-paved the back alley (don't know if it drains any better but it's clearly much darker and there's lines painted) and the building beside it is gone and instead there's a ton of grass. So maybe it's better, but I'm sure they shortened the remaining life of the building by a ton.

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I don't know. It depends.

Asphalt spread out on very large surfaces sure sucks. Like parking lots and street parking. It contributes to flooding and heat island effect. It's also bad for runoff polluted water, filled with microplastics from tire shedding. Too much asphalt everywhere is bad.

But! Some major bike green ways and rail trails here have started to put asphalt on their bike paths, and they have good reasons for doing so. Those rail trails were covered with fine crushed rocks before, and the runoff was also pretty bad for the environment. The maintenance was higher because the gravel needs to be replaced. And the path couldn't be used for some weeks in the spring and fall because of thaw cycles. This article in French has a mayor saying they had this studied and it was better for the environment to have their part in asphalt. Plus, bikes are not heavy enough to damage the asphalt so it also needs much less maintenance for cycle routes.

I'm all for having asphalt on major bike roads and rail trails. But not on rural roads mainly for cars, and not to cover parking lots.

EDIT: Asphalt for bicycles, not cars. Like this.

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's still bad for the environment, you're essentially bisecting it. Animals can cross the road, but mycelial networks (which underpin pretty much everything in the forest) often can't. A ribbon of asphalt divides entire networks, isolating and perhaps even killing them, which leads to collapses in other areas. It also impacts drainage and encourages runoff.

This can be mitigated by using wood chips as a road surface instead of pavement. There are experimental mycelium-based road surfaces in development as well.

The holy Grail obviously is a flat, hard surface more similar to asphalt but without those issues, as I know wood chips and other rough surfaces can be both annoying to ride on and preclude certain vehicles/tires (i.e. road bikes) from riding on them at all.

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah, there's no perfect solution. Bicycles also produce microplastics and particles from tire shedding and brake pads. It's much much less than a car, but it still happens.

There is also a particular swampy area in a park with a paved bike path, where every year, there's a few dozen frogs flattened on the path. It's not common to other places where I ride, mostly just there. I was wondering if the heat of the asphalt might lure the frogs to bask on the path, and to their doom. However I've also ridden in the night and frogs sometimes just jump in your wheels. Maybe there's also just a bigger concentration there.

I've also seen terrapins lay their eggs in gravel paths. And I've never seen one dead, yet. In their case, asphalt might help a bit because they can't lay in the middle of the path, only the sides.

Plus, my point of view is also guided by the climate in my region, because asphalt can be plowed easily, and it also allows a cycling network to be open year round instead of just 6 months a year here. We can't cycle in mud or a metre of snow. Other regions might not have such extremes and can get away with well maintained dirt or gravel paths.

And I've never really ridden on wood chips for a long distance, only on decorative chips with soft beds. I'd be curious to try in some experimental spots. I would hope it's easier to roll on than grass. This also reminds me about some trails where they have multiple short wooden bridges to let nature cross in other ways.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 week ago

I prefer cycling on asphalt.

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 6 points 1 week ago

Self-evident in your mind, maybe. Ever tried to walk or cycle on a dirt road that's more holes than actual path?

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Pavestone (including Belgian pave just like what was used on Paris-Robaix) and dirt are good only if you have big cushy tires or a suspension fork. Or assuming dirt roads don't get dusty or muddy enough to get you blinded temporarily or splattered or forced to get off and walk through the mud.

Where I am, it's either asphalt or concrete, but how good are they depends on the subcontractor and the quality of materials bought. And of course, I ride a dirt road only if either I don't have much of a choice or I'm feeling sporty than commuting.