[May 2013..Dec 2013] The Gauteng E-tolling Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wyzak said:
That's what they want yes, but they can't give everybody criminal records. The courts also don't have time for this petty crap when they have murderers to throw in jail.

In addition, you won't get a criminal record unless they follow every procedure to the letter and they physically aren't capable of doing that due to cadre deployment.
Click to expand...

What would the charge be? Theft?

Wouldn't it just be a civil case, i.e. SANRAL sues you for the money you owe them?

Good luck suing hundreds of thousands of people every day/week.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
What would the charge be? Theft?

Wouldn't it just be a civil case, i.e. SANRAL sues you for the money you owe them?

Good luck suing hundreds of thousands of people every day/week.
Click to expand...

Criminal case. Due to the law that cANCer signed in. Not sure what the charge will me.. possibly, theft?
 
Tander said:
Can you elaborate for me on this, please?
Click to expand...

With the criminal procedure act (which they now want to use) there are tons of laws in place which need to be followed to the letter. Have you heard about a murderer being set free because the Police botched the investigation? That happens because of these laws and because the police fail to follow all of the procedures correctly and in the right order. The same thing will happen with the e-tolls.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
What would the charge be? Theft?

Wouldn't it just be a civil case, i.e. SANRAL sues you for the money you owe them?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what the charge would be. But no, it is specifically criminal because the chose the criminal procedure act. They didn't want to make it a civil matter (like AARTO).
 
supersunbird said:
Thanks, see gantries are not shown there :/
Click to expand...

Best map I could find is from 2011 via this PDF: http://www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/Van Niekerk_Alex.pdf

rg9G1LV.png
 
Tander said:
So let's get this straight...

If I don't buy an eTag (Which, I won't) but I continue to use the highways and I don't pay for the tolls, at all - it means SANRAL comes after me to pay and I end up in court, with a criminal record?
Click to expand...

Well, that's true irrespective of how they toll you - if you drove through a toll plaza without paying you'll end up in court.

The criminal part of it is them trying to change the debtor/creditor relationship from being a civil issue to being a criminal issue. So you could be a criminal for owing R10 (say). They are also trying to make you a criminal by removing your rights to protection by trying to keep this outside the National Credit Act.

As an example, you just cannot afford the R10. You use the road and they bill you R10. You cannot pay. So off to jail (assuming that's where criminals go). SANRAL should have determined if you are good for the R10 before they let you incur the debt.

This does need to go to the constitutional court.
 
Last edited:
amazingly they upped the fuel levy without any consultation or second thought when it came to appeasing the petrol station owners/workers, but its such a problem to do it for road maintenance!!
Can we not get the public protector to look at corruption in this etoll deal??
 
Wyzak said:
With the criminal procedure act (which they now want to use) there are tons of laws in place which need to be followed to the letter. Have you heard about a murderer being set free because the Police botched the investigation? That happens because of these laws and because the police fail to follow all of the procedures correctly and in the right order. The same thing will happen with the e-tolls.
Click to expand...

So, are they wanting to use the same CPA that's in place now, for eTolls - meaning no amendments to it?

Albereth said:
Well, that's true irrespective of how they toll you - if you drove through a toll plaza without paying you'll end up in court.

The criminal part of it is them trying to change the debtor/creditor relationship from being a civil issue to being a criminal issue. So you could be a criminal for owing R10 (say). They are also trying to make you a criminal by removing your rights to protection by trying to keep this outside the National Credit Act.

As an example, you just cannot afford the R10. You use the road and they bill you R10. You cannot pay. So off to jail (assuming that's where criminals go). SANRAL should have determined if you are good for the R10 before they let you incur the debt.

This does need to go to the constitutional court.
Click to expand...

Okay, from that point of view I agree. However, SANRAL could turn around and say I was well aware of the costs before using the road - therefor this is my problem. Not so?

Albereth said:
It is unconstitutional to make an example of anyone.
Click to expand...

That may be - but it won't stop them. Just look at the mess we're in now and how much SANRAL is trying to get away with.
 
Tander said:
Challenged, per case or as a whole with the bill that showerhead signed last month?
Click to expand...

Both, the Freedom Front plans on challenging the Constitutionality of the Transport Bill, and the individual users who are hauled into court will appeal their cases to the Constitutional Court on the basis that SANRAL does not comply with the National Credit Act, but should.
 
Tander said:
Okay, from that point of view I agree. However, SANRAL could turn around and say I was well aware of the costs before using the road - therefor this is my problem. Not so?
Click to expand...

You know how much stuff costs - yet you just ring it up on your credit card. The law is there to protect you. From yourself and from the credit provider. That's why there is a limit. The bank can't just assume that you are good for it - they need to do a credit test. And if they extend you more credit than you can handle it's actually their problem - not yours because you knew how much you spent.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Don't think that'll fly. Banks can't use that line when they recklessly lend to people.
Click to expand...

Might not "fly" but doesn't mean they won't try it. Banks lend recklessly, yes - and make it the clients problem. Not theirs. Same thing SANRAL will do?

Garyvdh said:
Both, the Freedom Front plans on challenging the Constitutionality of the Transport Bill, and the individual users who are hauled into court will appeal their cases to the Constitutional Court on the basis that SANRAL does not comply with the National Credit Act, but should.
Click to expand...

Okay, maybe I am missing the point here.

SANRAL need to comply with the NCA in order to collect toll fees. Also, they need to comply with the CPA, if they intend on using it to prosecute users who refuse to pay?

Now, let's say 600,000 (or more) motorists make it as difficult as possible for SANRAL to get money out of them - how will the courts cope with the cases - there will be queues for years?
 
Albereth said:
You know how much stuff costs - yet you just ring it up on your credit card. The law is there to protect you. From yourself and from the credit provider. That's why there is a limit. The bank can't just assume that you are good for it - they need to do a credit test. And if they extend you more credit than you can handle it's actually their problem - not yours because you knew how much you spent.
Click to expand...

So, if SANRAL comply with NCA - then we could use that defence?
 
Tander said:
Might not "fly" but doesn't mean they won't try it. Banks lend recklessly, yes - and make it the clients problem. Not theirs. Same thing SANRAL will do?



Okay, maybe I am missing the point here.

SANRAL need to comply with the NCA in order to collect toll fees. Also, they need to comply with the CPA, if they intend on using it to prosecute users who refuse to pay?

Now, let's say 600,000 (or more) motorists make it as difficult as possible for SANRAL to get money out of them - how will the courts cope with the cases - there will be queues for years?
Click to expand...

The new law exempts them from NCA if i read correctly
 
Wyzak said:
Also to discriminate against people of other provinces or countries (who have to pay 80% more - standard user vs e-tag user).
Click to expand...

Here they'll argue that you are not being discriminated against because you can get a tag.

Exempting taxis is discriminatory - they are not public transportation.
 
rakabos3 said:
The new law exempts them from NCA if i read correctly
Click to expand...

This transport bill?

So then, the whole argument is invalid with regards to complying with the NCA. How can they provide credit to motorists (Which is what they're doing) and not comply with the NCA? That's ridiculous!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X