Collecting e-toll fees 'impossible'

Flanders said:
No. They're trying to cover up the fact that they have no adequate billing process. If they did then there would be no e-tag or discount of any kind.
Click to expand...
South Africans have a habit of ignoring bills like that. Look at the compliance rate on traffic offences, SA only pay when they risk getting cut off a service somewhere.

Flanders said:
Actually I wouldn't for the simple fact that it entails a debit order on my account. Where ever and whenever possible I do my damndest to avoid those. But, okay, I see what you were getting at.
Click to expand...
You can go for the top up option.
 
R13... said:
This is going to get thrown out of court. A reasonable man or judge will point out that given the massive discounts offered for e-tagging there should be no need to send out so many invoices as reasonably people should tag for discounts. The fact that people are tagged is just disobedience and protest that must be resolved. So the system will either completely fail or convince the protester to get tagged.

I don't even need to be a lawyer or judge to know this.
Click to expand...

Dude, you need to let your brain also have some oxygen every now and then as well.

This is not going to get thrown out. They actually have a very good case, and the legal action was inevatable and overdue.
The e-tags are not compulsory so the judge is not even going to go there.
But if he insists on it against all better judgement it will be shown that there are numerous problems with the e-tag system.
It is a flawed system through and through.
I think you are in for a bit of a shocker when your ANC masters get their asses handed to them.
 
Garyvdh said:
I think you are in for a bit of a shocker when your ANC masters get their asses handed to them.
Click to expand...
Why must you always reduce yourself to ad hominems, it is weak dude.
I suppose you have nothing to say for the obvious fact that any judge will point out that the system doesn't need to cope with that many manual transactions given the discounts. It is illogical to suggest people will overlook a ~50% discount just for the heck of it.
 
Lol you still think its a discount? I feel sorry for you
 
R13... said:
Why must you always reduce yourself to ad hominems, it is weak dude.
I suppose you have nothing to say for the obvious fact that any judge will point out that the system doesn't need to cope with that many manual transactions given the discounts. It is illogical to suggest people will overlook a ~50% discount just for the heck of it.
Click to expand...

You fell for their marketing hook line and sinker. There is no "discount" .... this is the amount they wanted us to pay all along. All that other stuff that came before was engineered to make it look like we were being thrown a bone.

And right now I am paying nothing... so how am I supposed to look at an additional cost of R550 a month as a "discount"???

The judge has no grounds to require people to take up something that is optional. There is no legal warrant for it.
 
R13... said:
Why must you always reduce yourself to ad hominems, it is weak dude.
I suppose you have nothing to say for the obvious fact that any judge will point out that the system doesn't need to cope with that many manual transactions given the discounts. It is illogical to suggest people will overlook a ~50% discount just for the heck of it.
Click to expand...

Not paying a cent is much better than your ~50% discount. People know this can not be enforced so they just will not pay at all.
 
A discount would be them paying me.
Their shyte wokmanship has resulted in the R21 being dug up again. Which means I will have to replace tyres again this month.
 
R13... said:
Why must you always reduce yourself to ad hominems, it is weak dude.
I suppose you have nothing to say for the obvious fact that any judge will point out that the system doesn't need to cope with that many manual transactions given the discounts. It is illogical to suggest people will overlook a ~50% discount just for the heck of it.
Click to expand...


I've never in my life had to pay to use the highways around gauteng, so even if its 1c for 1000km I do not see the discount you speak of. If I were to get a discount now it would mean SANRAL paying me!
 
BBSA said:
Not paying a cent is much better than your ~50% discount. People know this can not be enforced so they just will not pay at all.
Click to expand...
Like I said the argument by OUTA is then moot. The simple reason is that people don't want to pay. Why go waste the courts' time with arguments that the system won't work because of overload when the real reason is that no one wants to pay?
 
reactor_sa said:
I've never in my life had to pay to use the highways around gauteng, so even if its 1c for 1000km I do not see the discount you speak of. If I were to get a discount now it would mean SANRAL paying me!
Click to expand...
Not really. Most of the opponents argue that there are better collection methods like the fuel levy (they realise that someone has got to pay). So they would happily pay an increased fuel levy just not via the gantries.
 
daveza said:
He's suggesting something doesn't gel - if the discounts are so big yet nobody is biting then there must be another issue besides cost.
Click to expand...

Well...maybe because even with the discount...many people just simply cant afford it. With this new petrol price increase..many are gonna be pushed to the brink...even without having to pay toll. With the toll...well..you just breaking the donkey's back.
 
Screw 'em, Come get my money from my cold dead hands.

This is now the 3rd time in less than 6 months, that they are digging up half the R21, for what????
 
No one wants to pay double. If we pay double we want SARS to give it back at the end of the year.
 
R13... said:
Like I said the argument by OUTA is then moot. The simple reason is that people don't want to pay. Why go waste the courts' time with arguments that the system won't work because of overload when the real reason is that no one wants to pay?
Click to expand...

Because they have the balls to do it.
 
I wonder How long it will be for someone to copy the Etags, then you could have people using your etag and you getting charged for it...
This is south africa....
In Germany/austria, they use this system but there they trust the government also I think it is subsidized.
 
R13... said:
Like I said the argument by OUTA is then moot. The simple reason is that people don't want to pay. Why go waste the courts' time with arguments that the system won't work because of overload when the real reason is that no one wants to pay?
Click to expand...

Hi R13,

Perhaps you could start addressing the 50 points raised in this thread as to why we are boycotting the system. Are you saying that these 50 points are all invalid and that we're just too stinjy and full of schit to pay? Really? :wtf:

And just to address your "adopt the top-up" argument: that doesn't resolve the dispute and flagrant access to the cash issue. All that it resolves is how much they can take. It doesn't resolve the problems relating to the burden of proof, access and disputes. You will need to come up with a few more intelligent arguments in order to back up your case that we're all just fighting it for the sake of it...
 
deepdiver said:
I wonder How long it will be for someone to copy the Etags, then you could have people using your etag and you getting charged for it...
This is south africa....
In Germany/austria, they use this system but there they trust the government also I think it is subsidized.
Click to expand...

IIRC, it failed after a couple of months in Germany.
 
R13... said:
This is going to get thrown out of court. A reasonable man or judge will point out that given the massive discounts offered for e-tagging there should be no need to send out so many invoices as reasonably people should tag for discounts. The fact that people are tagged is just disobedience and protest that must be resolved. So the system will either completely fail or convince the protester to get tagged.

I don't even need to be a lawyer or judge to know this.
Click to expand...

You're using the cart-before-the-horse argument here. You're trying to make out as if the judges are actively looking for reasons to institute the tolling system. They are not. The issue is not how many invoices should be sent out - the issue is how many are likely to be sent out. This is where your cart has completely over-run your horse. I know that you think that you don't need a lawyer nor a judge to supposedly "know" this, but it might be best to consult with one instead...
 
R13... said:
Not really. Most of the opponents argue that there are better collection methods like the fuel levy (they realise that someone has got to pay). So they would happily pay an increased fuel levy just not via the gantries.
Click to expand...

This is very wrong thinking. The fuel levy already has collection processes in place, the fees charged by SANRAL to merely collect tolls increases them exponentially. Yes, we'll pay more in fuel levies but in the amounts of a fraction of the actual toll fees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X