E-Tolls go live - 3 December 2013

[Sláinte Mhaith]

Saw this on Facebook earlier 

That if I remember correctly is an advertising board and not in South Africa.

Wish it was an e-toll gantry.

[Koet]

That was in Europe somewhere, can't remember where.

[dirtyXT]

  any idea what country that is?

[Bundu]

any idea what country that is?

NAIROBI, Kenya, Oct 29 – The Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) has admitted to bringing down the multimillion shillings billboard structure on Waiyaki Way, saying that it had been erected on the site illegally.

KeNHA Public Relations Officer Charles Njogu, through a statement, said that the authority was acting in good faith by trying to protect the public and did not foresee the kind of inconvenience the exercise would have, after it took longer than expected to clear the site.



http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2013/10/kenha-says-it-brought-down-illegal-billboard/

[mox]

JZ and cronies trying to protect their pensions. Bastards

Cape Town - An application to declare the e-tolling legislation unconstitutional and invalid was dismissed by the Western Cape High Court on Thursday.

Story Coverage

    e-Tolls Saga

Subscribe
to our newsletters

"The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs," Judge Owen Rogers said.

He said the Democratic Alliance, which lodged the application, would have 14 days to file an application for leave to appeal his judgment.

The DA approached the court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Act was passed into law in September last year.

The amendments allowed for the collection of electronically recorded tolls and the implementation of the electronic toll-collection system.

The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.

The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.

The DA's legal team had argued that the amendments to the Sanral and National Roads Act had knock-on effects for provinces.

The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu, National Council of Provinces chairman Mninwa Mahlangu, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters, the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral), and the National Treasury.

They had argued that the amendments had not made vital and substantial changes to provinces and had therefore been tagged correctly.
-Sapa

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/e-toll-application-dismissed

[Bundu]

JZ and cronies trying to protect their pensions. Bastards

Cape Town - An application to declare the e-tolling legislation unconstitutional and invalid was dismissed by the Western Cape High Court on Thursday.

Story Coverage

    e-Tolls Saga

Subscribe
to our newsletters

"The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs," Judge Owen Rogers said.

He said the Democratic Alliance, which lodged the application, would have 14 days to file an application for leave to appeal his judgment.

The DA approached the court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Act was passed into law in September last year.

The amendments allowed for the collection of electronically recorded tolls and the implementation of the electronic toll-collection system.

The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.

The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.

The DA's legal team had argued that the amendments to the Sanral and National Roads Act had knock-on effects for provinces.

The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu, National Council of Provinces chairman Mninwa Mahlangu, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters, the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral), and the National Treasury.

They had argued that the amendments had not made vital and substantial changes to provinces and had therefore been tagged correctly.
-Sapa

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/e-toll-application-dismissed

 let's not worry about that - we as the citizens do not accept e-tolling and will not cooperate...... end of story!

[mox]

 

[Tommy Transalp]

JZ and cronies trying to protect their pensions. Bastards

Cape Town - An application to declare the e-tolling legislation unconstitutional and invalid was dismissed by the Western Cape High Court on Thursday.

Story Coverage

    e-Tolls Saga

Subscribe
to our newsletters

"The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs," Judge Owen Rogers said.

He said the Democratic Alliance, which lodged the application, would have 14 days to file an application for leave to appeal his judgment.

The DA approached the court after the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Act was passed into law in September last year.

The amendments allowed for the collection of electronically recorded tolls and the implementation of the electronic toll-collection system.

The DA had argued the amendments were unconstitutional and invalid because they had not been passed according to what it deemed to be proper procedure, which would be with input from the provinces.

The bill was tagged as a section 75 bill -- an ordinary bill not affecting provinces -- rather than a section 76 bill, which does affect provinces.

The DA's legal team had argued that the amendments to the Sanral and National Roads Act had knock-on effects for provinces.

The respondents in the application were President Jacob Zuma, National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu, National Council of Provinces chairman Mninwa Mahlangu, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters, the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral), and the National Treasury.

They had argued that the amendments had not made vital and substantial changes to provinces and had therefore been tagged correctly.
-Sapa

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/e-toll-application-dismissed

 let's not worry about that - we as the citizens do not accept e-tolling and will not cooperate...... end of story!

Touche! 

[Fudmucker]

My employer (a Government Department) has issued a circular that they will only reimburse toll fees
on work trips if they are on an official E-toll statement and only at the E-tag rates.

So, if I don't get a tag for my vehicle I must travel on alternative routes or else fund the tolls from my own pocket.

[Brodes]

Got my FIRST E-toll statement in the post last week - actually two statements were delivered at the same time. The statement dated 31 Jan was payable a few days later in order to qualify for the discount, and I received the statement in March FFS! So no chance whatsoever of qualifying for the discount.
No photos were included of the vehicles, only a listing of registration numbers.
I was planning to pay cash (thus leaving them with the admin costs of dealing with cash) to settle just time, but given that I now have to pay the full amount, they can sue me.
My bill is not excessive (I don't need to use the system on a daily basis) and basically just ride through a gate on an add-hoc basis with all of my vehicles, cars and bikes, to force them to bill me, but their incompetence in billing me two months late and then saying that I have forfeited my 'early bird' discount due to their incompetence just gets to me.
I consider myself to be a law-abiding, professional individual in general, pay my taxes on time, have a clean credit history, generally obey the rules of the road and society in general, but SCAMRAL has become my tipping point. Fcuk them. Now they can sue me for every last cent.

[Bundu]

Got my FIRST E-toll statement in the post last week - actually two statements were delivered at the same time. The statement dated 31 Jan was payable a few days later in order to qualify for the discount, and I received the statement in March FFS! So no chance whatsoever of qualifying for the discount.
No photos were included of the vehicles, only a listing of registration numbers.
I was planning to pay cash (thus leaving them with the admin costs of dealing with cash) to settle just time, but given that I now have to pay the full amount, they can sue me.
My bill is not excessive (I don't need to use the system on a daily basis) and basically just ride through a gate on an add-hoc basis with all of my vehicles, cars and bikes, to force them to bill me, but their incompetence in billing me two months late and then saying that I have forfeited my 'early bird' discount due to their incompetence just gets to me.
I consider myself to be a law-abiding, professional individual in general, pay my taxes on time, have a clean credit history, generally obey the rules of the road and society in general, but SCAMRAL has become my tipping point. Fcuk them. Now they can sue me for every last cent.

you would surprised to see how many generally law abiding people have taken a stand against this shit - I don't even open my Sanral envelopes any more - they can take me and thousands of others to court 

[BikerJan]

My employer (a Government Department) has issued a circular that they will only reimburse toll fees
on work trips if they are on an official E-toll statement and only at the E-tag rates.

So, if I don't get a tag for my vehicle I must travel on alternative routes or else fund the tolls from my own pocket.

Travel on alternate routes

[elandsrider]

Got one in the post, my son at tukkies, ignored it as advised by WDs, now get emails at my work adress, where does scumral get info?

[Koet]

Set up an automated delete rule.  Works like a charm.

[Bundu]

Got one in the post, my son at tukkies, ignored it as advised by WDs, now get emails at my work adress, where does scumral get info?

Sanral is not even sure if you're getting the emails/SMSs, so just ignore, ignore, ignore.........

[Sylvester]

http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-03-16-e-tol-nuwe-kinkel


E-tol: Nuwe kinkel

Kan chaos in howe wees

 sonja carstens,pieter malan
 
Sondag 16 Maart 2014




 


Die beleërde e-tolstelsel het nóg ’n spoedhobbel getref nadat dit aan die lig gekom het dat die pensioenfonds waartoe elke landdros in die land behoort miljarde rande in e-tol belê het.

Dié feit kan chaos in die howe veroorsaak as motoriste wat gedagvaar word omdat hulle nie hul e-tol betaal nie, aanvoer dat hulle sake na die hoër hof verwys moet word omdat landdroste bevooroordeeld sou wees omdat hulle ’n finansiële belang by die uitslag van die saak het.

Die staatspensioenfonds, die pensioenfonds waartoe alle landdroste behoort, het sowat R17 miljard in Sanral-skuldbriewe belê.

Hoewel regsgeleerdes van mening verskil of landdroste se finansiële belang in e-tol groot genoeg is om enige vooroordeel te bewys, glo baie dat die kwessie tóg ernstig genoeg is om die gladde toepassing van die reeds omstrede stelsel nog verder te beduiwel.

“Persoonlik dink ek die finansiële belang wat landdroste in e-tol het, is te gering om vooroordeel te bewys,” sê prof. Koos Malan, ’n dosent in publieke reg aan die Universiteit van Pretoria (UP) en voormalige landdros.

Maar weens die politieke storm om e-tol meen hy die kwessie sal waarskynlik in die konstitusionele hof beland.

Menige landdros sal waarskynlik maar te gewillig wees om hom of haar aan so ’n saak te onttrek en die saak na ’n hoër hof te verwys, sê Malan.

Landdros Nazeem Joemath, president van die vereniging van regsprekende beamptes van Suid-Afrika (Joasa), bevestig Malan se standpunt en sê die feit dat landdroste tot ’n pen­sioenfonds behoort wat in Sanral belê het, is ’n verleentheid.

“Hoe gaan ’n landdros argumenteer dat die sukses van e-tol hom of haar indirek baat, maar dat jy as beskuldigde steeds ’n regverdige verhoor sal kry? Dit is hoekom Joasa al jare vra dat landdroste uit die staatspen­sioenfonds verwyder moet word,” het Joemath gesê.

Streeklanddros Hein Louw, voorsitter van die salaris- en vergoedingskomitee van die streeklanddrostevereniging van Suid-Afrika (Armsa), sê egter die staatspensioenfonds se aandeel in Sanral dui nie noodwendig op ’n belangebotsing nie.

“Die fonds is ’n vastevoordeelfonds, wat beteken ongeag hoe e-tol vaar, is die landdros sy of haar geld in die fonds gewaarborg.”

Op die oomblik heers ’n ongemaklike dooiepunt tussen Sanral en honderdduisende padgebruikers wat weier om hul tol te betaal.

Sanral het tot dusver, ten spyte van ’n dreigende houding, nog geen padgebruiker gedagvaar nie terwyl die Bondgenootskap teen Stedelike (Outa) hulle openlik uitdaag om dit te doen.

Die Outa-woordvoerder John Clarke sê geen hofsaak tot dusver het die wettigheid van e-tol getoets nie. Dit kan slegs gebeur as Sanral ’n padgebruiker wat weier om te betaal, dagvaar.

Die minister van vervoer, Dipuo Peters, het vroeër die maand erken dat net “tussen 23% en 28,6%” van die 2,5 miljoen motoriste wat Gautengse hoofweë gebruik ’n e-tolskyfie het.


Sanral het nie herhaalde navrae oor landdroste se beweerde partydigheid om e-tolsake te verhoor, beantwoord nie.

[Koet]

Lekker.  Meer chaos.

Fok hulle en hulle e-tol.

[Bundu]

dit begin tog vir my lyk of dinge volgens plan verloop..... ONS PLAN!! 

[elandsrider]

 

[Koet]