SANRAL can start eTolling Now. ConCourt sets aside Injunction.

[BigBullBully]

And WHO will be the INJURED PARTY in this case. ?

SANRAL, as loss of revenue will be attributed to job losses within SANRAL, as well as you knowingly using a service (the highway) that requires payment for its use.

Don't get me wrong, I will not pay for a public road, but I'm not stupid. A metro or other cop does not care if you have a case for wrongful arrest, they do it anyway, try reasoning with a cell full of criminals that you have rights.

[ToxicBunny]

Skywalker my son, You are a South African citizen, therefore while you are on South African soil you are subject to its laws.

I know you don't like this, but deal with it because it is the reality you have to live in.

[OrbitalDawn]

Skywalker my son, You are a South African citizen, therefore while you are on South African soil you are subject to its laws.

I know you don't like this, but deal with it because it is the reality you have to live in.

Haven't you read his "off-the-grid" posts? They're quite amusing.

[ToxicBunny]

Haven't you read his "off-the-grid" posts? They're quite amusing.

Yeah I have, many times, and I constantly shake my head at him.

I can absolutely guarantee you that he is little Mr Meek and Mild when the "law" is around, and doesn't even begin to behave the way his posts suggest you should.

[Ricard]

Toll road sucess story... The project will be as sucessful as it is in every country.

the M6 in the UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-7577538.html

[Garyvdh]

Author: Paul Kearney
Comment:
I struggle to believe it when I read "In any case, as the Constitutional Court pointed out, the “uncontested evidence” before the court was “that 99% of the burden of tolling will be borne by more affluent road users who make up the first and second quintile of income earners in Gauteng and that public transport users will be exempt from paying tolls. The harm these users will experience will therefore not be of a pressing or acute kind.”"

This smacks of the finger of the crooked shopkeeper on the scale. If, as de Vos alleges, the judgement is correct in law, why this gratuitous sneer against the "affluent" who probably already pay most of SA's taxes. As other comments point out; the bulk of the tolls collected will be distributed and recovered by increases, and an excuse for increases, in the price of basic commodities. At best, the judges are so far above this idea that they miss it, at worst they cannot comprehend it.

As for the "user pays principal" this is plain rubbish as applied in SA. Already buses, taxis etc are exempt. So these users don't pay. Then, if you like the principal does it apply to electricity? Oh, and water? Think about the Lesotho Highlands Scheme costs shared throughout the SA tax base, for the benefit of Gautengers and new dams in the E Cape for people who will never pay. Not to mention TV licence fees.

The guts of the issue, as I see it, and de Vos' little panicked squeal in the comments seems to point to it; is that the toll scheme may be defensible in law but, like Eskom etc etc, is crooked and is used as a skimming operation for the ANC, some well organised businesses and maybe connected cadres. The result is that the "user" pays far more than he should if the scheme were honest.