Skip to main content

200 new Stationless Bikes For Hire

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
200 new Stationless Bikes For Hire

Two companies, BleeperBike and Urbo, got a licence from Dublin City to operate stationless bikes for hire and to compete with Dublin Bikes. This is a big step! And it also a development that has advantages and disadvantages.

One year ago, Dublin City threatened BleeperBike to remove their bikes from Dublin’s streets if they launched as they had planned back then. Now they got the licence and are ready to launch immediately. The bikes are white and are already available in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. The great thing about the new bikes is that they will allow us to hire bikes in and to areas that are currently not covered by Dublin Bikes (and that might never be reached by Dublin Bikes). The disadvantage the new bike hire schemes might bring is that Dublin Bikes membership will be less attractive for some and therefore the Dublin Bikes charges might go up when less people subscribe.

For users the big difference is that there is no yearly charge, instead you pay from the first minute of usage after you unlock a bike with an app. Dublin Bikes allow you to use the bike for free for the first 30 minutes as often as you like during the year, but you pay a yearly fee. Bleeperbike also have a 3 Month membership and 12 month membership plan that also gives you the first 30 minutes for free if you don’t want to use the Pay as you Go plan, but these membership plans are a lot more expensive than the Dublin Bikes plan and Dublin Bikes could use that as a justification to increase their charges too.

And another important thing to note: “Stationless” doesn’t really mean completely stationless!! You are not allowed to park and lock the car anywhere, instead, the bike has to be locked to a “recognised public cycle parking space” and these spaces are identified in the BleeperBike app.

www.thejournal.ie/dcc-stationless-bikes-4044090-May2018/
www.thejournal.ie/share-bikes-dublin-urbo-bleeperbike-2-4046606-May2018/

Dublin, Dublin City Council, Taoiseach, ,

National Museum at Collins Barracks hikes up Parking Fees

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
National Museum at Collins Barracks hikes up Parking Fees

We have something great in Ireland! All our four National Museums do not charge any admission charge. That’s the National Museum at Collins Barracks, in Kildare Street, in Merrion Street and in Turlough, Co. Mayo. This is a bit of a luxury that not many countries have. Sure, it is not really free because in the end we all pay for it through our taxes, but at least you can go there without paying as often as you want.

Collins Barracks is a huge site with only half of it open as a museum and the other half is storage for a huge amount of additional exhibits. Collins Barracks also has is – as a former barracks – on a huge site that has its own car park.

Until 2013 parking was free there, but due to budget cuts in 2013 it was announced that they would have to charge for parking and the fees were a very moderate
+ EUR 2 for 0-3 hours
+ EUR 4 for all day parking.
That was still a good price and you could go to the museum for up to three hours for a low cost.

But last week on 19 May this substantially changed. The new charges are now
+ EUR 2 for just 1 hour
+ EUR 5 for up to 4 hours
+ EUR 12 for all day

That is a HUGE increase! If you assume maybe 2.5 hours for an extensive visit it will cost you EUR 5 instead of EUR 2 before. That’s 150% of an increase!! :-O

And no! Your taxes didn’t go down!

Dublin, Events, Tourism,

The GDPR Bloodbath – Companies will die!

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
The GDPR Bloodbath – Companies will die!

If you still don’t know that something happened on 25 May that affected electronic communications then you you don’t use e-mail or the Internet (and then you won’t get to read this anyway ;-) ) or maybe you have never bought anything on the Internet and have not subscribed to any newsletters (apart from the Dublin Event Guide :-) ).

In an over-hyped panic state many companies and organisations who dod have clear permissions from their customers/subscribers asked ALL their subscribers to re-subscribe. Others who had mailing lists that were decades old and that were populated in ways that would not be compatible with the new GDPR rules had no choice. I got hundreds if e-mails! Initially senders asked me to re-subscribe but then it all changed and they mails were a mere notification of the new GDPR rules.

I had looked into the new regulations well in advance and since everyone who gets the Dublin Event Guide had to request to get added and then had to confirm that they REALLY want to get added, I have clear documentation of the request so I didn’t have to bother you again. But imagine this:

A typical mailing list has an opening rate of 10-40%. That means 10-40% of the recipients open a mail. The rest is too busy right now and plans to open at a later stage (but might never get to it) OR they have lost interest in the information OR they are not actively using that mail account anymore. So if a company has 10,000 subscribers and they did send the GDPR mail “Please confirm your details, otherwise we will have to delete you.” They already lost 6000 – 9000 subscribers the moment they hit the SEND button. Let’s be generous and say they ONLY lost 7000. Now the 3000 remaining people would have confirm that they still want to receive the newsletter. But since all mails arrived on one day and people got annoyed with so many re-subscribe mails. many decided to take the opportunity to get rid of some unwanted newsletters. So where normally maybe 40-50% would have confirmed, I wouldn’t be surprised if on Wednesday and Thursday of this week only about 20-30% actually did subscribe (and that number could still be too optimistic.) Let’s continue with 25%.

So after one e-mail and the introduction of GDPR the company has just 750 people left on their list! From 10,000 to 750 with one e-mail! That is an absolute disaster for a company that depends on online sales or on online promotions to achieve online or offline sales.

The result will be a highly probably loss in sales and revenue and because the company might have lost the “innovateability” that they had when they started originally and also runs on higher costs in comparison to the start-up days, I wouldn’t be surprised if companies will have to close! :-O

An odd and difficult situation. But it is too late now. :-O

Media, Odd,

To Repeal or Not to Repeal? There can only be ONE answer!

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
1 Comment
To Repeal or Not to Repeal? There can only be ONE answer!

It took me a LONG time to write this article. Not because I don’t know what to think, but because I found it difficult to create a readable piece of written work because it is such a complex subject and my thoughts and opinions are similarly complex.

Let me start with the simple (or not!) part and the part that already might stop you from reading anything else after it unless you are the type of person who has the ability to disagree with another opinion and still can continue to listen/read for another bit to understand why.

The simple part is this: There is only ONE answer that a democratically-minded person should give to the question “To Repeal or not to repeal” and that is a clear and loud YES. But the next bit will surprise you maybe: The reason for the YES should have NOTHING to do with abortion or no abortion in the first place.

It is “YES” for me without hesitation, but I dislike the idea of abortions! So my opinion is not straight forward and I (partially) disagree with both camps that fight over the 8th Amendment Referendum.

Let me explain:
The Referendum is a decision about a clause in the Irish constitution and without a shadow of a doubt the clause about the protection of unborn life has NO place in a constitution. The New Oxford American Dictionary says “A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.” In such a document, clauses like the 8th Amendment have no place! The laws of a country are there to cover what happens if you steal, or murder or do other possibly illegal things and that is where any regulation about abortion should be. The constitution is there to explain what the role of the parliament is and what the president does and how the state is organised, nothing else.

For that reason the 8th Amendment should have never been added to the constitution and it is high time that it will be removed.

BUT IT OBVIOUSLY DOESN’T END THERE

Unfortunately (but somewhat understandably) the issue for most voters will not be decided by the suitability of a certain clause in a constitution but by the further effect this clause will have and by their personal opinion. That’s where it gets messy.

After the YES vote at the referendum, we should have a discussion about abortion and that should lead to the relevant laws about it. It should be an open discussion, but that won’t happen. And for that reason the referendum will regrettably not be about the constitutional amendment but about the law that might take its place.

If you like that piece of law, you will vote YES and if you don’t like it then you will vote NO to block the ability to have a open and democratic discussion. I think that approach is wrong but I can understand why it is taken by the NO side.

WILL A NO STOP ABORTIONS

One question we need to ask is if a NO vote will stop abortions and I think it is 100% clear that it will not stop them! So voting NO can only be driven by trying to keep the lid on it. But if someone votes NO he/she will not stop women to go to the UK to get an abortion and oddly this seems to be something the NO side can live with. It shocks me, to be honest. A consequent NO voter should insist on making abortions illegal and put women in jail of they terminate the pregnancy. Anything else is a cowardly escape from a hugely problematic issue.

I would never be in support of criminalising the termination of a pregnancy and – in all honesty – I can imagine situations in my past where I didn’t have to, but where I would have been prepared to seriously consider suggesting an abortion if I had been the other 50% contributor to a pregnancy.

I would go even one step further and would claim that a YES will not cause a significant increase of abortions. Women that decide to have an abortion (and don’t think ANY woman is thrilled about having an abortion. Maybe thrilled about not being pregnant anymore, about not about going through the procedure.)

So if abortions won’t get stopped and if there might not even be an increase in abortions then a NO vote is even less effective.

TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY OR NOT?

But that leads me to the big question of what my opinion is about the early termination of a pregnancy? Be warned, though, it is not simple!

I am between both camps and feel unrepresented by either of them. I am in favour of the option of an abortion in certain circumstances and at the same time I feel very sad when I hear that in one year up to 190,000 wonderful children could have been born in the UK but they never got a chance to see this wonderful world. So I would love it if abortions were not necessary.

The overriding opinion I have is that nobody should be forced to be pregnant and nobody should be forced to end a pregnancy! There should be help available – good and positive and constructive help – in all situations where a woman has concerns about her pregnancy and the possible termination of it.

ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS

If the pregnancy was caused by a rape, if the baby has genetical abnormalities or if there is a medical reason that puts the mother at risk or that means the baby has limited chances to survive, the mother should be helped making the decision in a neutral, compassionate and non-influencing way. It ultimately is the mother (ideally with involvement of the father, but ideal situations don’t always happen!) who has to and should be allowed to decide if she wants the continuation or end of a pregnancy. If there is a medical situation then ALWAYS the survival of the mother should have priority.

Abortion as a method of birth control is a aspect I am very uncomfortable with, BUT I can see why even in these situations a mother will decide to end the pregnancy and I am not so arrogant to think that I know better or I or we as society should tell her what she should think or feel! So I am in favour of the option of abortion, but I think there should ALWAYS neutral (!) advise be given before the final decision.

If an abortion is a frequently used method for birth control though, I think our society and educational system has failed badly because there are other methods of birth control that we have to educate better about. An abortion should be the very very last option.

BABY OR NO BABY?

I know the difficult question about what this “thing” is in a woman’s womb has to be considered but it doesn’t make things easier. I think that it doesn’t matter if it is a foetus or a baby, it is definitely a form of life. And an abortion is the ending of life! Yes, I said it! And I am still not moving to the NO camp. Why is that? It is because I am hypocritical!! :-O But it gets worse: Most of us are hypocritical and we have not much of a problem with it!!

We are also arrogant! We think that us human beings rule this world and we should be allowed to do whatever we want (or whatever our moral source allows us to do). Have you ever killed a fly? Or a spider? You killed life that was created by God or the creator or whatever you believe is the source of being. Do you eat meat? Slaughter is brutal murder for our own pleasure! But we only SOME animals! The animals we feel are at the lower end of the intelligence hierarchy we kill. Cows and pigs. But would you eat dog or horse? NOOOO! HOW horrible! Why is that horrible? Why is it ok to kill and eat fish, but dolphins must be protected? We are soooo hypocritical!!

I am not suggesting that foetus is an animal, but most of us are not consequent. We make up stories and justifications. Oh and by the way, BOTH sides make up stories and justifications!

I admit that I am hypocritical and that’s why I am saying that I wished abortions were not necessary, I ALSO am of the opinion that we can’t close our eyes to medical, criminological, genetical AND societal reasons that could make it impossible for a woman to bring this baby she is carrying into this world. And if I am a hypocrite, what right do I have to judge her? We should help women to be able to see that there are options and that abortion is not the ONLY way in a stress situation, but we have to stop being arrogant a**holes who know better!

For that reason I am saying there is only ONE answer and that answer has to be YES.

By the way, if you are strongly against abortions then you can do something: Help organisations or even start an organisation that helps to reduce abortions. Work on making adoptions easier! Help people that provide financial and practical support to women in crisis so that maybe they will be able to consider bringing this baby in this world. Don’t be a person who votes NO and then does NOTHING! You are not saving lives! Vote YES and then start saving lives!!!

Elections, Irish, Society, , , , ,

Eurovision and the National Pride

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Eurovision and the National Pride

It is with some surprise that the Irish entry at the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, sung by Ryan O’Shaughnessy, made it to the final on Saturday. The song was not horrible and the singer is good, so there was no explicit reason for expecting that it wouldn’t qualify. But as we know from years and years of Irish failures, the quality of a song or singer is not always the most important thing.

So on Saturday the following countries will compete:
From the second heat Serbia, Moldova, Hungary, Ukraine, Sweden, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Slovenia, Netherlands will make it to the final on Saturday and from the first heat there will be Austria, Estonia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Israel, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Albania, Finland and Ireland. These 20 will be joined by the already seated bigger countries Spain, Portugal, UK, Germany, France and Italy.

So far so good, But there was one thing that I found even more surprising than the Irish entry making it to the final: It was that suddenly and immediately a National Pride seemed to kicked in.

RTE2 showed a celebrating Ryan O’Shaughnessy holding up an Irish flag and the text read “@Ryan_Acoustic summing up how the whole country is feeling right now:” And a RTE News item on their website had the headline “Nation shares pride at Eurovision qualification”. Comedy Actor Rory Cowan wrote “… Brilliant result. … Ireland are back”. [Should that not be “Ireland IS back”??? :-O ] Musician Brendan Murray commented “Well done @Ryan_Acoustic and all the team! It’s times like this I’m proud to be Irish now bring her home son!”. He didn’t explain thought who “she” from “bring HER home” was :-P

So there were some outbursts of national pride there indeed. But is that maybe just a few people playing to their audience? Or is it a widespread feeling of National Pride triggered by the somewhat odd Eurovision event?

Let’s see how it works out on Saturday. The competition final will start at 20:00 and can be seen on RTE TV.

Events, Irish, Society, , ,
 
Malcare WordPress Security