E-tolls: here comes Sanral's next move

IzZzy said:
I would imagine they would argue that not paying within the legislated time periods without valid excuse is enough circumstantial evidence they need to indicate your intent to not pay. They will draw that line in the sand for you, and leave it up to you to show it is not the case in court.
Click to expand...

Cool. In that case I'l simply alert the officer to the fact that I have every intention to pay. The when is not their concern...
 
rakabos3 said:
I hear you.

Problem SANRAL has is that nobody is buying their BS anymore. There will be anarchy if they block the on-ramps.
Click to expand...

I actually hope they try enforce this en-masse and not selectively, so the reprisal is immediate. And I hope people record instances of bullying.

DJ... said:
What it is though, is a tacit admission on Sanral's part that e-tolling has been unsuccessful. It really is...
Click to expand...

The honey (etags) has not worked, so now they must try vinegar.
 
DJ... said:
Cool. In that case I'l simply alert the officer to the fact that I have every intention to pay. The when is not their concern...
Click to expand...

I don't think words would override your conduct in such instances. It is not enough to say you will pay.
 
DJ... said:
I was...
Click to expand...
Well they're at it again. Where I live, I saw them again going to houses to try and collect unpaid fines and other stuff. Not too sure about the other stuff though
 
Koosi said:
Well they're at it again. Where I live, I saw them again going to houses to try and collect unpaid fines and other stuff. Not too sure about the other stuff though
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
IzZzy said:
I don't think words would override your conduct in such instances. It is not enough to say you will pay.
Click to expand...

Unless they're offering the ability to pay on the spot, I don't see how this could be construed as anything but bullying and abuse of state resources. They're not enforcing anything at all actually other than debt collection, while limiting my movement, without the ability to actually rectify the matter, which may in fact be a billing error for the cop knows.

This will however once again backfire. The bullying tactics will only entrench people's convictions against the system...
 
rakabos3 said:
Huh?
Click to expand...
Its the following scene... uniformed METRO POLICE officer knocking at the doors of random houses in nearby streets, with a paper, presumably a warrant, which appears to be an AARTO type document. Most people ignore them and eventually they go away.
 
IzZzy said:
Their right to deny you access to the highway for non-payment of toll fees.

Also, they can enforce any other traffic law there is.
Click to expand...

Mmmm I doubt that will hold up in court as the roads are not private property of Sanral nor was the whole structure funded by Sanral.

Also iirc they will have needed to have served you with a summons and then you can give notice to defend.
 
Devill said:
Mmmm I doubt that will hold up in court as the roads are not private property of Sanral nor was the whole structure funded by Sanral.

Also iirc they will have needed to have served you with a summons and then you can give notice to defend.
Click to expand...

Again their civil remedies and criminal punishment don't go hand in hand. Denying you access is not dependent on their being a summons issued or judgment, but rather the fact of, I would imagine, a history of failing to pay. This is one step removed.

Whether or not it will hold up in court after the fact will not have a bearing on SANRAL first denying you access.
 
IzZzy said:
Again their civil remedies and criminal punishment don't go hand in hand. Denying you access is not dependent on their being a summons issued or judgment, but rather the fact of, I would imagine, a history of failing to pay. This is one step removed.

Whether or not it will hold up in court after the fact will not have a bearing on SANRAL first denying you access.
Click to expand...

At the moment it is unlawful to deny anyone access to a public road and I would imagine that the onus would fall on them to serve you with the bills and provide a judgement against you. If they were to try and deny you access to the road it would be unlawful until they have gotten a judgement from the court and the police should then be assisting the person and not Sanral.

Also I would love to see how Sanral will stop 1,000,000 people from using the etolled roads as i doubt the police will be able to assist keeping people off the roads without Sanral having judgements against the people they are trying to keep off the etolled road.

But I am hardly well read in the subject of law, thus I am sure I am assuming too many things and that their clever legal department will find a way.
 
They aren't banking on 100% enforcement of this (ironic, right?). They're banking on the threat filtering through to people and fear spreading due to it, and therefore compliance rates going up. It's again ironically the very opposite of what they should be doing.

All of their current tactics have involved an element of scaremongering. They haven't actually attempted goodwill/good-faith/sincere marketing yet. They claim to have, but if they're honest they know they haven't. So picking up a heavier stick now won't change anything but entrench people's convictions against this system. They're being very stupid.

But then again, their ship has sailed and there is simply no way for them to redeem themselves now...
 
sorry what Gauteng Provincial Police?

The structure of the SAPS envisages one police service with provincial commissioners and so forth but the provisions enabling a metropolitan police force (section 64 - 65) don't allow for provincial police.
There are provincial traffic agencies but not policing
 
Paul Hjul said:
sorry what Gauteng Provincial Police?
Click to expand...

Gauteng Provincial Traffic Police. SAPS has got nothing to do with traffic police Paul. Section 3(1)(a) of the Gauteng Provincial Road Traffic Act No. 10 of 1997 allows the MEC to appoint traffic officers (GPTP), and section 3(1)(c) allows a local authority to do so as well (JMPD).
 
What I am asking is whether same did not originally have jurisdiction in any event as part of traffic law enforcement and are they "police" I know provincially appointed traffic officers are "peace officers" under the CPA etc ... What is concerning me is whether Gauteng's Department Community Safety and Department of Transport are not over-reaching

SAPS ordinarily are outside of the scope of traffic concern but have some nifty powers that are pertinent - consider the roadblock power under s13(8) of the SAPS Act. This is where my worry would creep in, if "Gauteng traffic police" assume the powers of SAPS to institute roadblocks and all sorts of **** can happen and if the provincial commissioner is roped in ...

The question is sincere - has Gauteng taken steps to move away from the traffic enforcement model used in other provinces, are we finding the community safety mandate and sheer size of force leading to a identifiable Gauteng police force
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X