Commercial Alarm - help

Just because it's published by a bureaucrat doesn't make it correct. In fact, the very opposite is true. You know that any time a politician says something is right or wrong, it's only being said to further their own agenda and has actually nothing to do with "real" right and wrong. If you're saying that the 99% figure is what they use and are basing their decisions on, I couldn't deny it. As to it's accuracy, it's wrong. All it takes is education and in my area, we've taken a proactive stance and have brought in the experts to teach them how to calculate and compare alarm signals in the real world, so that they can see the results of 2 call verification, fines, and all the statistics from proven studies and programs in other areas. So far they've listened. And no response, is off the table, so far. You're right, something's got to be done, but calling all alarms systems useless or implying it, or perpetuating it, with that 99% false alarm myth, isn't true. Even the police agree (in this area anyway) Like the man said, when the police figure out how to reduce crime 100%, that's when the alarm industry will reduce false alarms 100%

What about the other fifth?

I have radios on continuously so I can track what is going on. I have the scanners in my truck on all day long too so you know if something is going on in a certain area or if somebody is actually responding to your alarm calls. Around here more than 2 hours is normal response although there are cases where a unit arrives in about 30 min. No response could be classified as quick or fast or prompt. Alarm calls have a low priority while 911 hangup calls get a higher priority. At least 99% of the 911 calls are no good yet nobody wants to charge those folks a false call fee.

In this area many peeps try to call Mexico and either can't get through or get wrong numbers or busy signals... the country code for Mexico is 91. They dial 91 then 1 then the 10 digit number and surprise surprise they get the 911 call center and then they hangup and the cops run these stupid hangup calls 24 hours a day.

The automated dispatch system they use here keeps flashing these 'held' calls on the dispatcher's screen and after 2 hours they require a supervisors' permission to continue holding calls. However, the supervisors routinely tell them to just keep holding them. And 2 hours later they tell them to do the same thing again and on and on. Many times at 3 or 4 am you will hear a cop say to the dispatcher to call the reportee back and see if they still need the police out there as the call has been holding since 5pm the previous afternoon. People don't have any idea how screwed up things are.

Costs $25. to send a guard unit - ain't nobody going to pay that.

Based on the data supplied by the police chief and fire chief to justify the permit fees and false alarm fines my suggestion was to send the fire dept on all burglar alarm calls but city council didn't see the humor.

The police chief reported that it costs anywhere from $3200,-$33,000. to send 1 policeman in 1 police car to answer a burglar alarm signal and it takes around 2 hours in many case.

The fire chief says it costs $1100.-$1400. to send 3 fire trucks and 7 fireman to answer a fire alarm signal and they arrive in less than 15 minutes in most cases.

So if we send the fire dept to answer the burglar alarms we would save tons of money and get faster response and scare the hell out of any burglars.

Which reminds me of the following:

The Commissioner of Education released some startling information today...

One third of the people in this country are unable to read.

One third of the people in this country are unable to write.

And the remaining two fifths can't do simple arithmetic.

Actually you take the actual number of installed alarms in a given area and compare that to the number of those alarms that have given a signal; at this point you could ascertain a percentage of alarm systems that were giving signals as opposed to the remaining percentage that were not.

Then, if you had the proper records and a complete investigation had been made into each of the signals received, you could ascertain a percentage of alarms that were caused by humans and what percentage were caused by everything else.

However there are no investigations into alarm signals so there are no figures - just these 99% figures based upon nothing more than a "guess" in most cases cause the cops just guess its a false alarm because they didn't find "anything". Many times the customers find a lot of things the cops didn't find yet that doesn't alter the original report that the alarm was false.

Drink it

I'm not saying alarms aren't effective. Some are. Out of 10,000 dispatches, 100 can be defined as an actual crime. It's 100% effective for the one hundred. I don't dispute that, nor that it is effective. What I'm saying is, the department that collected that information, uses that data to determine man power. Man power which is paid for by people's taxes. Their efforts are based on the intervention of actual crimes, with the number of responses, of which produces a by product of...a percentage. It's not Political, but there is sometimes no denying there may be an underlaying agenda. Problem is, IMO, that agenda often travels the wrong road, and offers no solution towards reversing the direction. Big money will continue to curupt the system, and the Country. Like you, I'm a Craftsman guy, living in a Wal Mart world....with no end in site.

Now mebe thash tha reesun I caint doo the rith a ma tic.

Wow thats long resonse time! Much shorter here...under 10 minutes for burg. Duress is fast, I pushed mine once by mistake and the coppers were at my door with guns drawn in abt 3 min.

Up in Vegas we have to dispatch guard service, then if guard sees something amiss he will dispatch police...and yes the client gets charged for each guard dispatch.

Fire signals don't go against false alarm counts either...just burg, panic, holdup.

| > I do, and believe me when I say "Burglar alarms are a LOW LOW LOW | > PRIORITY"... Response time is anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours... On a | > busy Friday night, your customer's alarm will probably be cleared out of | > the dispatch system without being assigned to a patrol unit. | | The automated dispatch system they use here keeps flashing these 'held' | calls on the dispatcher's screen and after 2 hours they require a | supervisors' permission to continue holding calls. However, the supervisors | routinely tell them to just keep holding them. And 2 hours later they tell | them to do the same thing again and on and on. Many times at 3 or 4 am you | will hear a cop say to the dispatcher to call the reportee back and see if | they still need the police out there as the call has been holding since

I'm done with this except to say that 99% of police dispatches initated by electronic security systems do not result in a report indicating a crime has been committed. These are the numbers being used to rationalize non-response. They're not my numbers.

Our problem is that there is a growing perception among lawmakers that police departments are wasting resources on responding to burglar alarms. If your company and my company are too survive, we must change either what we sell or the industry must do somehting about the false alarm problem. That is my point. The rest is irrelevant.

Btw, my big company has been around for 131 years, and I am "management there." Neither one of us is going anywhere anytime soon.

Hey, you're plagerizing ! That's your salesmens line they spin to all their gullible victims !

RHC

Yes, that's exactly my point. The police are using an unfair statistic, and they don't understand why it's unfair.

Judging alarm companies by the total number of false alarms they create: that's fair.

Judging alarm companies by the average number of false alarms each system causes: that's even more fair.

Judging alarm companies by the ratio of false alarms to actual burglaries: that's complete bullshit. Alarm companies have no control over how many burglary attempts there are. If all the burglars decided to take the next month off, the false alarm rate would be 100%. If the burglars decide to work extra hard and commit more crimes, the false alarm rate would actually drop. Would the lower percentage mean that alarms are working better? Of course not.

Alarm systems are electronic devices that have a certain failure rate, just like any other piece of electronic equipment, and that failure rate is not affected by the number of burglaries that are attempted. This is just like fire alarms. The number of false fire alarms has nothing to do with the number of fires. I'll bet you'd find the percentage of fire alarms that are false is also in the high nineties, simply because there are more and more fire alarm systems and no corresponding increase in the number of fires.

Trying to cut that false alarm percentage is a game the alarm companies can never win.

Unfair statistics? Your point? Your point is dilusional.

So what a false alarm index? Where do you suppose this data would come from? Alarm companies? You just said that would be unfair.

That's what you would think. Unfortunately alarm companies don't follow through with the result. Instead AHJ's do.

Look, again...put aside your personal feelings. No body is saying the industry is not effective, nor that alarms aren't either. You're side stepping the information, just like the industry. Some of us just want to see it more, or most effective. Stop focusing on what you think works, and realize there is a circular pattern here. Realize for every action, there is a reaction. For every reactive response, there may be a proactive initiative. Think Man!

These numbers aren't based on comparisons. That's how the Politicians and idiots, use this information. It's a simple fact of economic's, man-hours vs. tax dollars. Alarm installers/dealers aren't paid by tax dollars, responding authorities are. Think.

I disagree. Finding the $9 answer for alarm companies will never happen. It's going to be tough because the industry is geared towards being competitive with one another. The industry is too focused on RMR. Lost was the value that alarm systems could have, or should have provided. It's not everywhere though. Some, the few, do make, or try to make a difference in the industry. Some of those guys are right here.

This has been part of my argument about this subject. If police weren't "somewhat" obligated to "roll" for an alarm signal, there'd always be 2 cars parked behind the firehouse. At least they're showing a presence in the community when responding to alarm signals. That in it's self is a deterrent. As it is, if you ever need a policeman, you stand a greater chance of finding them parked behind a commercial building, than patroling. This whole thing about costing so much to respond to alarms is simply the patroling cops having to move. It's not that they're all working 100 percent of the time. More like

eatin' donuts... they certainly don't doo much in the way of investigating actuals, robberies or fraud around these parts.

| >> >Here's how simple the calculation is: The Police are notified to respond | > to | >> >a burglar alarm going off at xyz residence. Police arrive, find no sign | > of a | >> >break-in at the premise. This is logged as a "False Alarm". This | > information | >> >is collected all Year long. At the end of the year, they compare the | > actual | >> >calls for response, with ACTUAL crimes. Response vs. Crime. | >> >

| >> >100% Response | >> >99% False Alarm | >> >1% Valid Crime | >> >

| >> >If I'm wrong, show me a report from a responding authority having | >> >jurisdiction that states otherwise. "SHOW ME" | >>

| >> Yes, that's exactly my point. The police are using an unfair statistic, | >> and they don't understand why it's unfair. | >

| > Unfair statistics? Your point? Your point is dilusional. | >

| >> Judging alarm companies by the total number of false alarms they create: | >> that's fair. | >

| > So what a false alarm index? Where do you suppose this data would come | > from? | > Alarm companies? You just said that would be unfair. | >

| >> Judging alarm companies by the average number of false alarms each system | >> causes: that's even more fair. | >

| > That's what you would think. Unfortunately alarm companies don't follow | > through with the result. | > Instead AHJ's do. | >

| >>

| >> Judging alarm companies by the ratio of false alarms to actual | >> burglaries: | >> that's complete bullshit. Alarm companies have no control over how many | >> burglary attempts there are. If all the burglars decided to take the | >> next | >> month off, the false alarm rate would be 100%. If the burglars decide to | >> work extra hard and commit more crimes, the false alarm rate would | > actually | >> drop. Would the lower percentage mean that alarms are working better? | > Of | >> course not. | >

| > Look, again...put aside your personal feelings. No body is saying the | > industry is not effective, nor that alarms aren't either. You're side | > stepping the information, just like the industry. Some of us just want to | > see it more, or most effective. Stop focusing on what you think works, and | > realize there is a circular pattern here. Realize for every action, there | > is | > a reaction. For every reactive response, there may be a proactive | > initiative. Think Man! | >

| >>

| >> Alarm systems are electronic devices that have a certain failure rate, | > just | >> like any other piece of electronic equipment, and that failure rate is | >> not | >> affected by the number of burglaries that are attempted. This is just | > like | >> fire alarms. The number of false fire alarms has nothing to do with the | >> number of fires. I'll bet you'd find the percentage of fire alarms that | >> are false is also in the high nineties, simply because there are more and | >> more fire alarm systems and no corresponding increase in the number of | >> fires. | >

| > These numbers aren't based on comparisons. That's how the Politicians and | > idiots, use this information. | > It's a simple fact of economic's, man-hours vs. tax dollars. Alarm | > installers/dealers aren't paid by tax dollars, responding authorities are. | > Think. | >

| >> Trying to cut that false alarm percentage is a game the alarm companies | > can | >> never win. | >

| > I disagree. Finding the $9 answer for alarm companies will never happen. | > It's going to be tough because the industry is geared towards being | > competitive with one another. | > The industry is too focused on RMR. Lost was the value that alarm systems | > could have, or should have provided. It's not everywhere though. Some, the | > few, do make, or try to make a difference in the industry. Some of those | > guys are right here. | >

| >

| | |

I betcha if the cops were given a choice of responding to false alarms or being laid off, they'd have a different perspective. All they're hoping for is less to do. Take a look as some of the cities/towns who've instituted no response. Have they laid off ALLLLLL of the police that were SOOOOOO busy responding to false alarms? If not, I'm sure they should have a lot of statistics about how the crime rate has gone down. Oppps! don't have that either huh! It not about false alarms, it's all political garbage. Feel good laws that do nothing to actually make things better. There's no way the industry should buy into their

Hmmmm ...... Now on the other hand, how long is it going to be before the people who break into homes and businesses start to get bolder and utimately prove that even response to false alarms is a deterrent. If intruders know that there's any chance that the police will respond, they're a little bit more reluctant and don't stay around as long. Not much, but better than knowing that they're NEVER going to respond.

It's just like what's been happening in England the last 5 or 6 years. They've confiscated all the privately owned firearms. Have created laws that don't allow home owners to harm intruders under the threat of imprisonment and being allowed to be sued by the intruders. In the last few years, violent crime in England has exceeded every record . ie. No deterrent, more crime.

Then I'd suggest that you don't quote them within the context of justifying no response. If you'd have said that these are the figures that the politico's are using and we've got to find some ways to change their views and we've got to find some ways to prove that alarm systems can do better .......... then sure....... you're absolutely right. But the way that you've presented it, even with alarm verification with video, do you really expect that if no one is actually picked up on video that the cops shouldn't roll? And what if some thing else caused the video motion to activate? Not an intruder. If they responded, that would still put the false alarm rate a 99%. If they respond to two false alarms or 2000 false alarms, it's still 99%.

Exactly. And part of that "something" is educating the police, politicians, public and people such as yourself who've bought in to the

It's that perspective that we've got to change. We just can't buy into it and thereby confirm their erroneous thinking. In other responses here, I've asked if anyone thought that the police departments were going to lay off all of the extra policemen that they've needed to respond to these false alarms? Or are we going to see a drastic reduction in crime because now they're free to fight crime? You know the answer to both questions. And that's what we'd buy into if we don't educate them to the idiocy of their thinking.

And neither is the greater portion of the industry that is comprised of "companies like mine"

It's always interesting to me that the people in an industry which depends so heavily on the local police have such a low opinion of them. Mostly this attitude stems from ignorance; most people have no idea what real policemen do, how they go about the business of crime prevention, and balance that with the blizzard of paperwork they are required to complete. I can't speak for the cops on Long Island, maybe they're lazy, maybe not. I can only speak from my own experience. The cops here don't have much time for snoozing.

People tend to see what they want to see, and most people resent authority. Therefore, they look for reasons to dislike police officers. Three police cars parked outside a restaurant; lazy pricks, right? What, you don't eat lunch? You don't stop for a cup of coffee at 7-11 while you're working? The cops parked behind a commercial building here are most likely working on reports, because THAT is what takes up most of their time during the shift. Ever see two or three police units pulled over on one traffic stop? Rubberneckers, right? Never mind that there are two or three guys in the car they stopped, and the chances are very good that one or more of them are (1) on parole, (2) under the influence, (3) armed, (4) don't speaka da English, or more likely, a merry mix of the above.

Crime is prevented by making vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian stops; talking to people you wouldn't want to meet, let alone put your hands on. The more contacts, the more arrests are made, and the cleaner your streets. The cops I know don't really mind responding to alarms. They do however, have an issue with the chronic offenders, and rightly so. To say that police response to alarms should be discontinued to make more time for "real" crime prevention is silly. But to say that by eliminating that response there would be more "cars parked behind the firehouse" is even more so IMO.

js

We wouldn't need them. Money would go to things like schools, feeding children, social support services, community services, recreation, etc, etc... Right know we're paying them to drive in circles... We should have Waste Management respond to alarms while they're picking up trash. ;-)

alarms........