But that's because they're cold all the time.
So it's worth spending the extra on the resistant road surfaces. It possibly wouldn't be cost-effective here; and councils don't have the cash (or the political incentive) to plan for the long term, when funding is worked out annually and all council seats are up for election every three years. Why would any council put up taxes for a year to pay for a more lasting road surface, when voters would immediately chuck 'em out for being (allegedly) spendthrift?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:12, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

I don't like your logic
Get out of my thread
( TGB checking Off Topic is still shit at, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:23, Reply)

The roads in Sweden are tarmac too.
Perhaps they're constructed differently since the materials appear to be the same?
The roads in Ukraine and Russia are also tarmac and have potholes the size of cars. In fact, they are essentially potholes laced together by tiny bits of tarmac.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:30, Reply)

Rural Romania
has some of the most decrepit roads I have ever seen - truly epic.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:39, Reply)

Different construction, different mixture &c
And probably better - and more expensively - built to begin with, since they have a sensible approach to public spending over there.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:58, Reply)

Can you not write "etc." like a normal person
instead of being a pretentious twat?
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 12:04, Reply)

I like "&c".
So get to fuck.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 12:34, Reply)

Cool, fucking is not a problem for me.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 12:40, Reply)