Try again.
Amorphous graphite is made of microcrystals, which don't have the same properties as a full crystal structure. For example, diamond is a crystal, but graphite in pencil lead is not. You make this too easy yet again.
Look, you want to educate me, why don't you go and show me why a crystal structure is stronger than a non-crystal structure and why a microcrystal structure doesn't count as a crystal structure because I can't seem to find anything to back up your claims.
You're the one who seems comfortable driving on a gravel asphalt mixture and not worrying about wear.
Let me guess, you just learned during your google adventures that asphalt isn't what a road is actually made of. Should I golf clap that you can try pedantics now? Up until this point you seemed rather okay with my use of asphalt as a colloquial and interchangeable term.
I've known all along what asphalt was and what was in the road. It wasn't until I got to the heart of the matter on why you think glass is a terrible idea that I began to wonder if our current roads were any better.
This led me to examine why things wore away with friction and grinding. Unfortunately I couldn't come up with the same conclusion as you. From what I've read, it's not about the crystal structure but rather the strength of the bonds. For example:
Talc is a crystal but it's one of the softest crystals in the world. You can scratch it with your finger nail.
This lead me to hardness as being the factor that determines if something will wear away another thing.
And it turns out that the binding agent of the roads (asphalt) has a lower hardness compared to glass.
So if tires are going to grind away glass then they'd also grind away the asphalt in the road. Based on the hardness difference, it would seem to me that a tire would grind away the asphalt faster than glass. And when the binding agent get's worn away, what's left but the loose rock? Well that and the sub-layer if there is one.
This is why I was being pedant.