Not seen it raised on here.
Just found out about this
www.gov.uk/government/news/dart-charge-dartford-crossing-remote-payment
Essentially its just like the congestion charge payment methods.
|
They have a similar system on the ring road/ motorway to the north of Dublin. Pain in the backside frankly. If you're busy and forget...
I'd much rather lob a few coins in a bucket or shove a credit card in a machine like on the M6 toll.
I hate self service pay points in supermarkets too though. By way of another moan.
|
|
Hope it's still free for bikes. We were talking about this earlier this evening....going to France next week for a few days.
|
|
If you're travelling through the night, it can be quicker just to dive straight across London.
|
|
Crossing London was a option we considered....nearly did it a couple of years ago as he was on a 125....I was on a 1200 so said I'd meet him on the A2 interchange, in the event he came with me down the M25 - that was no picnic for either of us...neither was the utter nightmare of the queue to the crossing....the need to filter overcame the fear of been knocked off by a lane changer or some nutter on a bike going faster than us...not for the feint hearted...
|
>> changer or some nutter on a bike going faster than us...not for the feint hearted...
Go west young man - No crossing.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 15 Apr 14 at 23:21
|
Don't forget the 50MPH average speed cameras on the approach to the bridge RP.
Pat
|
>> Don't forget the 50MPH average speed cameras on the approach to the bridge RP.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Good point, though to be honest most of the time you are lucky to average 5mph there let alone 50mph !
|
>> If you're travelling through the night, it can be quicker just to dive straight across
>> London.
The Dartford Crossing is free at night - 10pm to 6am IIRC.
|
|
Just received billing via Hertz for non paid toll fee for Port Mann toll bridge in Vancouver last summer. Same system as Dartford are introducing. I wondered where the toll gates were at the time.
|
>> They have a similar system on the ring road/ motorway to the north of Dublin.
>> Pain in the backside frankly. If you're busy and forget...
>>
>> I'd much rather lob a few coins in a bucket or shove a credit card
>> in a machine like on the M6 toll.
The funny thing is this.
1/ We were promised that the charge would be withdrawn when the crossing was paid for.
2/ We were told the charge would be maintained to create congestion and limit traffic use.
3/ the toll booths are being removed to alleviate congestion.
the only constant is the fact they are charging
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 15 Apr 14 at 22:51
|
|
I think the new collection mechanism is now seen as a trial for an expansion of road charging.
|
>> The funny thing is this.
>>
>> 1/ We were promised that the charge would be withdrawn when the crossing was paid
>> for.
>>
>> 2/ We were told the charge would be maintained to create congestion and limit traffic
>> use.
>>
>> 3/ the toll booths are being removed to alleviate congestion.
>>
>> the only constant is the fact they are charging
>>
While I've just torn you off on another thread this makes perfect sense. If they can make road charging work properly (RFID tags?) and the sell it politically then OK.
Until then follow the Scots and abolish tolls for estuarial crossings etc. They might have made sense when bridges first replaced ferries but on the M25.... FFS.
|
Haven't been over/under Dartford for years. But what a sensible idea. Even more sensible to do autopay - which makes Congestion Charge a doodle.
Or even better, go through London. Down the M11, through Blackwall and then the A2.
|
>> Haven't been over/under Dartford for years. But what a sensible idea. Even more sensible to
>> do autopay - which makes Congestion Charge a doodle.
>>
>> Or even better, go through London. Down the M11, through Blackwall and then the A2.
In rush hour?
|
>>In rush hour?
Depends where you prefer to queue. The M25 in rush hour is like hell on earth (isn't it?) When I cruised past Dartford bridge last Tuesday evening (I was doing well over 70mph, thank you, being well-fuelled on champagne) traffic was queuing over the bridge doing about zero mph.
|
>> >>In rush hour?
>>
>> Depends where you prefer to queue. The M25 in rush hour is like hell on
>> earth (isn't it?) When I cruised past Dartford bridge last Tuesday evening (I was doing
>> well over 70mph, thank you, being well-fuelled on champagne) traffic was queuing over the bridge
>> doing about zero mph.
And slower on the M11 - Blackwall tunnel - A2
|
Something I'd not appreciated until today was that there is an appeal process associated with the new barrierless crossing system.
Like the London Congestion Charge there will be a system whereby a disputed change or penalty can be taken to a Tribunal - in this case the Traffic Penalty Tribunal:
www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/
The pages detailing how it will work have yet to be uploaded to the website but will presumably appear once the new scheme goes live.
The tribunal is totally impartial and completely separate from the Highways Agency and Kent/Essex Councils. The Adjudicators are all lawyers appointed with the consent of the Lord Chancellor.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 14 Oct 14 at 15:43
|
|
Nice. But if they scrapped the tolls as they'd suggested they might, we wouldn't need to be paying the tribunal (presumably out of raised revenue) would we?
|
>> Nice. But if they scrapped the tolls as they'd suggested they might, we wouldn't need
>> to be paying the tribunal (presumably out of raised revenue) would we?
They reneged on that commitment about 15 years ago...
The Tribunal exists anyway to deal with appeals about parking, bus lanes and yellow box offences. It's a pretty streamlined operation, almost wholly paperless, and funded by a levy on tickets etc issued.
There will presumably be a similar levy on crossing charges to fund those appeals but it will be a fraction of a penny per user.
|
|
You were there, during the times prescribed, or you were not. Whats to appeal?
|
>> You were there, during the times prescribed, or you were not. Whats to appeal?
That'd probably be my simplistic view too. But there seem to be enough cases about the London Congestion Charge to keep the Adjudicators going.
Google Baroness Walmsley for an example.
|
>> >> You were there, during the times prescribed, or you were not. Whats to appeal?
>>
>> That'd probably be my simplistic view too. But there seem to be enough cases about
>> the London Congestion Charge to keep the Adjudicators going.
Congestion charge is different, many many entry points, many many exit points, sometimes one side of the road is in, while the other isn't, its possible to legitimately travel less than 20 yards into and out of the zone, people live in it, Its a very ill defined concept
The crossing is none of those things, there is no doubt you are are using it., None at all.
|
>>
>> The crossing is none of those things, there is no doubt you are are using
>> it., None at all.
>>
Unless your car has been cloned or the ANPR (presumably) gets it wrong.
|
|
Or if the admin has cocked up and say you've not paid when you have and stick to bone head mode when challenged. Plenty of parking appeals allowed on that basis.
|
|
neither of the above is enough to set up an appeals process with the mentioned costs.
|
>> neither of the above is enough to set up an appeals process with the mentioned
>> costs.
You won't be saying that if you were improperly charged
Works like parking.
Unless you appeal it the charge is effectively a court judgement, subject only to registering it with the traffic Enforcement Centre. Go straight to Bailiffs.
Alternative would be to make them sue for it and let the problem cases go to court which would be much more expensive.
There has to be some sort of opportunity for adjudication or judicial process o/wise Article 6 rights (Fair Trial) are contravened. And quite rightly, arbitrary administrative action is a real threat.
|
|
Furthermore, since this is simply a new jurisdiction tagged on to an existing tribunal the extra costs are minimal.
|
>> Furthermore, since this is simply a new jurisdiction tagged on to an existing tribunal the
>> extra costs are minimal.
>>There will presumably be a similar levy on crossing charges to fund those appeals but it will be a fraction of a penny per user.
There are costs - for no good reason.
|
If you can prove you were cloned, or prove you paid or prove there was a ANPR fault let it go to court, if you can't there is no case for adjudication.
They are the ONLY THREE reasons the charge could be improperly applied., In parking there a million fact that could cause improper FPN.
As I said there is little to appeal against.
|
I agree that appeal volumes are likely to be low (unless the charging is contracted to Crapita in which case anything could happen).
There are plenty of reasons why charge might be wrongly applied ranging from disputed pre-payments through cloning to issues around vehicle class/weight, ANPR troubles, the 22:00 to 06:00 charge free period, hire cars, twoc'd vehicles etc.
Why go to court* and appear in front of a county court judge, who knows nothing about the subject, when you can go to a user friendly adjudication by somebody who is an expert in this stuff?
Are are you just being obtuse?
*Going to court isn't really an option as the law has provided a qualified adjudicator.
|
>> Are are you just being obtuse?
No I am not being obtuse, As you say volumes are low so there are NOT plenty of reasons are there, but you mange to invent load soft highly unlikely non reasons times? the time is the e**** time there is no doubt about that is there, Vehicle class? thats on the database and would have been checked when it was last taxed - TWOCING FFS
you are now draggin up pathetically unlikely reasons, probably came from your ability to generate non work in the civil service
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 21:27
|
>>Are are you just being obtuse?
Zero? Obtuse?
Of course he b***** is.
Stick with your original, and valid, response...
"There has to be some sort of opportunity for adjudication or judicial process o/wise Article 6 rights (Fair Trial) are contravened."
|
>> Stick with your original, and valid, response...
>>
>> "There has to be some sort of opportunity for adjudication or judicial process o/wise Article
>> 6 rights (Fair Trial) are contravened."
{tic}But that'll get right under the skin of the europhobes{/tic}
|
I'm not dragging up reasons. Those I quote are amongst grounds for appeal against the London Congestion Charge. TWOC is one of them. Not my responsibility to pay if car was used without my consent.
While the time is the effin time there have been cases for both parking and London Congestion Charge where the camera has been set to wrong time. Not unknown for DVLA to have weight/tax class wrong.
And non of that answers why you'd want to take any dispute to a judge rather than an expert tribunal.
|
>>Not unknown for
>> DVLA to have weight/tax class wrong.
Which as I said, would have been noticed at Taxation time,.
>> And non of that answers why you'd want to take any dispute to a judge
>> rather than an expert tribunal.
Judges are not expert in law?
Fed up with this. You car is on the bridge, at a time it gets charged. Its the vehicle not the owner. end of. Cloning is the ONLY cause for appeal.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 21:50
|
Only cloning?
And if the vehicle is stolen?
Because it might be the vehicle not the owner, but its the owner that they will pursue for payment.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 21:51
|
>> And if its stolen?
>>
>> Because it might be the vehicle not the owner, but its the owner that they
>> will pursue for payment.
Nope its the registered keeper, not the driver,. The driver is not being charged the vehicle is. Doesn't matter who drove it there, it was there it gets charged.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 21:53
|
>>Nope its the registered keeper, not the driver,. The driver is not being charged the vehicle is.
I don't think I understand that. I get the words, its the sentences that lost me.
nonetheless, if the vehicle was driven without your consent, might you not wish to appeal?
|
>> nonetheless, if the vehicle was driven without your consent, might you not wish to appeal?
Why should you have any grounds for appeal? The car is being charged for being there.
Without my consent? what about if say you lent it to a friend, who drove it there, and refuses to pay? there is no way (unlike a speeding camera) to divert the charge to someone else. If the car was there, there is a charge against the registered keeper.
|
>> Without my consent? what about if say you lent it to a friend, who drove
>> it there, and refuses to pay? there is no way (unlike a speeding camera) to
>> divert the charge to someone else. If the car was there, there is a charge
>> against the registered keeper.
Not read up the acts myself but are you sure RK liability is that strict? It's not for the congestion charge - see hired vehicles and TWOC.
|
>> Fed up with this. You car is on the bridge, at a time it gets
>> charged. Its the vehicle not the owner. end of. Cloning is the ONLY cause for
>> appeal.
I pointed out the facts about the appeal mechanism. It was you who chose to argue.
Judges are generalists in the law. We have tribunals where specialism is required as in things like social security, land (rates, compulsory purchase, restrictive covenants etc) or parking and traffic - transport tribunal for hgv licensing and de-frocked driving instructors.
This might be my specialist subject.....
|
>> >> Fed up with this. You car is on the bridge, at a time it
>> gets
>> >> charged. Its the vehicle not the owner. end of. Cloning is the ONLY cause
>> for
>> >> appeal.
>>
>> I pointed out the facts about the appeal mechanism. It was you who chose to
>> argue.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply he gave right up the start of this thread...
>>>> You were there, during the times prescribed, or you were not. Whats to appeal?
>>That'd probably be my simplistic view too.
|
>> >>>> You were there, during the times prescribed, or you were not. Whats to appeal?
>>
>> >>That'd probably be my simplistic view too.
Note the word simplistic the read to end and reference to London Charge and Baroness Walmsley.
Her issue could equally arise at Dartford.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 22:21
|
|
Stupidity has never been a defence in law, and should not apply in the case of the crossing nor would it get past an appeal in that case. At the end of the day she didn't pay the fee against the correct car.
|
Blimey, are you two still arguing the toss? I think we need some sort of appeals tribunal.
|
First I think we need a committee to discuss whether or not we need an appeals tribunal.
Now, how do we decide whether or not we need a committee and what do we do if someone disagrees with the decision?
|
>> First I think we need a committee to discuss whether or not we need an
>> appeals tribunal.
>>
>> Now, how do we decide whether or not we need a committee and what do
>> we do if someone disagrees with the decision?
You appeal to the appeals appeal committee of course.
|
>> Blimey, are you two still arguing the toss? I think we need some sort of
>> appeals tribunal.
You can keep your nose out, at least until they build something wider than a horse track from Norwich.
|
|
Elvedon ByPass due to open in a couple of weeks which means, as our local paper so eloquently stated "you will be able to drive all the way from Norwich to Barcelona on Dual carriageway."
|
>> Elvedon ByPass due to open in a couple of weeks which means, as our local
>> paper so eloquently stated "you will be able to drive all the way from Norwich
>> to Barcelona on Dual carriageway."
No-one told him about the channel then?
|
>> No-one told him about the channel then?
>>
Probably not. EDP reporters don't often stray South of the Waveney.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 23:22
|
>> Stupidity has never been a defence in law, and should not apply in the case
>> of the crossing nor would it get past an appeal in that case.
Joan Walmsley lost at the tribunal but won at the High Court:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1490233/Peer-wins-240-congestion-fine-case.html
|
I know I read it, and as I said she shouldn't because stupidity has now been confirmed as a valid defence in law.
But by taking it to court, she has proved we don't need a tribunal.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 23:05
|
>> I know I read it, and as I said she shouldn't because stupidity has now
>> been confirmed as a valid defence in law.
>>
>> But by taking it to court, she has proved we don't need a tribunal.
FFS she took the Tribunal to the Administrative Court by way of Judicial Review as a litigant in person. Not something Joe Public should even think of doing.
|
Dartford Crossing - new charging scheme - Runfer D'Hills
