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........
Jack,
I'm curious, what would all of these c>>
Any chance you have a reference and actual statistics to go with this? I would like to use this in certain debates elsewhare on usenet...
That's what I was thinking, Burg alarms eat up their downtime... Downtime = LOST Productivity............ Hmmm, or maybe if they quit responding to alarms, the crime rate will take a double digit dive... You know, because they'll have soooo much more time to fight real crime........ :-))
You're right about the Political side of things, and that's pretty much where we are today. Depends on the area, but the statement you made about police is probably dead on. I don't think anybody's wish is for unemployment. I do think a lot of people understand the word "efficient". (Except the Politicians)
I think you're right there too Jim. It's only a matter of time, on it's present course.
We're turning into the England we all wanted to break away from. We started off on the right foot, but the end result is the product of "Capitalism". And greed goes hand in hand with that word...
Give me a little time, I'll see if I can dig up some sources. You could subscribe to some of the UK news readers also. Similar things are happening in Australia also. I think I remember there, that they've banned swords too ..... Jeeeeeze.
You can look up the name Tony Blair. He was arrested for shooting some burglars after they had broken into his home a dozen or so times. He was jailed, convicted and then sued by the criminal he shot. When he came up for appeal, the criminal was asked his opinion on what course the court should take. Happened about 5 years ago, but is now the precident. There are more violent crimes and crimes involving firearms than there were before private ownership was banned. The governments response is to enact more restrictive private ownership laws. This is proof that the saying is true. If you take the guns away from the private citizens, only the criminals have guns.
Fox hunting is no longer allowed in England anymore either, because of the tree huggers having it banned. Now they have to use a drag of some sort for the dogs to follow scent. Just like the criminal, a fox takes higher priority.
Read it again Jack, it is not reality. Unless you have tested the statistics yourself to understand what is meant by **system failure**, don't get to excited. The products do not have a 99% failure rate. If that was the case, the public or us would not buy. That means that 99 out of every 100 panels get thrown away as garbage. C'mon, "a product has a 99% failure rate"? That is not reality.
Name
Name one that does.
Once
Like the cities that have gone to no response are re-thinking their positions? Take a closer look at Salt Lake's crime statistics since going no response. Some cities are making adjustments to go back on. Especially the ones that were policy and not ordinance. They are starting to look at cities that have shown a 35-70% reduction in FA's since adopting and **managing** a good ordinance. Why? Because of Salt Lake where it all started. Thank you Shana Werner for getting yourself kicked off of the FARA Exec. Board for not attending any meetings even though your city paid for you to be there.
Ask the company you work for. Get outside your box and ask what it is that pays your paycheck.
Your right. The mass marketers (Umm never mind) have taught the consumer that security should not cost anything. Does **FREE** ring a bell?
"J. Sloud" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
Saying that is different than your statement of 99% system failures.
What happened to your 99% system failure? No one will ever win the percentage game. That is a scripted ploy by the politicians and PD's to sell their message to the public. The same verbage has been repeated from one coast to the other and in cities, big and small. I think they e-mail the same schpeel to one another. You could have 1000 alarm users in a town. If the PD went out on 2 alarms, the percentage, the way they calculate it, would be that 100% of the alarms they responded to were false and it wouldn't matter if the alarms came from the same place. In reality, the percentage of alarms coming from active systems within the same time period, within their community, would be .002%. That would be 2 alarms out of 1000 systems, yet they calculated 100% false dispathes. Huge difference in the way things are calculated. Using your rational they would be responding to 990 system failures. Don't you get the fact that these people are trying to sell something and will use every trick in the book to convince the public that they need to go no response. The fact remains is that they usually don't even know how many systems are actually in their jurisdiction in order to do a percentage. The only thing they seem to remember is they went to the same location 40 times in one weekend.When listening and dealing with these cities, they always tip their hand when they are asked how many systems are in their city and they don't know. Right then, I know they have another agenda. The bottom line is that they (the cities) are usually broke and don't want the public asking those kind of questions.
No it isn't because it is another case that needs statistics of how many people are drivers to get the percentage of those that faced fatal accidents.
Tony Blair is the Prime Minister, Tony Martin is the person you are thinking of.
Doug L
No, I never said that. Actually, user error is to blame most of the time. However, the end result is the same: A dispatch to an alarm system site without a legitimate intrusion.
What I said was 99% of alarm calls are for false alarms. The cause is irrelevant in this statistic. The $99 burglar alarm killed the idea that the average consumer would care enough to learn how to properly operate the thing. The mass marketing and commoditizing of the equipment and services has eliminated the possibility of "end user education" doing any good.
99% of the time an alarm turns out to be false. Period. You can't count security systems who have not been triggered. They haven't done anything, good or bad. When an alarm is triggered, only one out of 100 times will the cause be a real burglar.
The number of systems in a given area is irrelevant. The point of these systems is to dispatch the police. If 99% of the time police are dipatched because of something other than the thing the damn systems were designed to detect, then that's a 99% failure rate. For the love of God, how can you people argue with that.
That's true, but a fair part of that is due to poor training. I've found that DIYers cause less false alarms than clients of some professional installers. The apparent reason is DIYers tend to understand their systms better. Obviously, this isn't 100%. Some DIYers cause lots of false alarms. Likewise, some clients of pros cause few problems at all. But on the whole I've experienced far fewer alarms due to user error among DIYers.
Don't take this as an indictment of professional installation. It's not intended as such. I'm only saying that if we're careful training customers we can make a significant impact on the number of false alarms.
Regards, Robert L Bass
I don't understand what you mean by that statistic. I don't think you're saying that each system only causes .024 false alarms per year, as that would mean your average system causes one false alarm every 40 years. What do you mean, exactly?
- badenov
I listed the breakdown. Equipment failure is a minority. User error is the leading cause of false alarms.
You're confusing crime in relation to false alarms. Less false alarms, does not equate to a higher crime rate. Both are defined.
Robert, in commercial work, you can tell the lead man in charge of facility security how to operate the system, and do a wonderful job at that, and it's not always going to help because 1) he's a bad teacher so he does a poor job of instructing his new employees, and 2) the turnover of employees is so dramatic in some businesses that the client could never afford to pay his alarm company to come back two or three times a month to instruct the newbies.
Where it comes to DIYers, I might agree with your assessment here based on the fact that since the average DYI person has installed his/her own system, they could have a much more respectful attitude regarding it's use. Of course, that does not guarantee that DYIers can't become lax and uncaring as well.
Al
Mr. Bass...where do you get your information on DIY false alarms from?
I've seen many surveys done on false alarms and not one separated the DIY systems from Professionally installed systems, and all the surveys were done on a National as well as on a local bases.
In my opinion Mr. Bass, you're just using this newsgroup to try to enhance your DIY business, as usual. Exactly what we have discussed on this newsgroup for years. Your using the newsgroup to promote your business should stop. If it doesn't stop, myself and many other posters will just have to let the participants know how bad a business reputation you have.
You haven't changed a bit Mr. Bass.
Norm Mugford
Let's try it this way. Suppose the alarm industry set a goal: cut the false alarms down to 50% of all dispatches. Half the time it's a false alarm, half the time it's a burglar. Gee, that sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
But that would mean that the total number of false alarms could not exceed the total number of burglary attempts at locations with alarms. No matter how many alarm systems are in use. Does it make any sense to equate the number of false alarms to the number of burglaries?
Of course, ideally the mere presence of an alarm would keep anyone from ever attempting a burglary, for fear of getting caught. So the number of burglary attempts would likely drop as the fear of capture increased. In order to maintain that 50% figure, the number of false alarms would also have to drop by the same amount. Does it make any sense to expect a reduction in false alarms because the number of burglaries went down? Putting it another way, would alarm companies be allowed to have more false alarms if the number of burglaries increased?
Anywhere there is a large number of alarm systems and a relatively small number of burglaries, the false alarm percentage will be extremely high, and there is nothing alarm companies can do about that figure. If you believe otherwise, you are expecting nearly all alarm systems to operate absolutely flawlessly for indefinite periods of time. I don't know of any consumer product that has that kind of reliability. Do you?
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.