So you don't need a factual number to start with, you just need to know math? Sounds like a theory to me.
I have the numbers...and you are correct. You don't have to be a rocket scientist... But you do have to know where to go to understand it. You're dictating a perception, and your personal theory here. I haven't seen a factual piece of anything that says otherwise.
Well, dispite circular views of perception, some American taxpayers actually like some facts about where their tax dollars are spent, and the effectiveness of monies spent. Some organizations use this information to find better ways, or collective ways prove, disprove, enhance, or be made aware of collected information. Unfortunately, this information can also be bias, used inappropriately, or in most cases, never even acknowledged that it exists. It also plays a part in National Security, and many other aspects of our way of living.
"They are required to do this for crime statistics in their area."
You answered your own question here. Something should always back perception, don't you agree? Without some factual information we'd be living in the Politicians world, always.
Compared to what you're countering with here, yes. Is it perfect? No.
Again you're selling a few isolated cases here. So if one organization cheats the system, all must be cheating? IMO that's a sad approach, but I also recognize it's the majority approach/perception. I don't have the money to counter the majority, but I do have the common sense to question it.
West Hartford, CT had a very effective ordinance & program for false alarm reduction some years ago.
There was a civilian PD employee who maintained the database of alarm licenses (cheap, one-time, required fee). The first four FA's in a year brought notices to the door. The notices included information on the circumstances surounding the false alarm event -- wind, weather, open door or window, observed loos pets inside, etc. The fourth event imcluded a warning that further false alarms would each bring a $50 fine (I think that was the amount). The tenth and succeessive events cost $100.
Along with the license fees and fines which partially paid for the program, there was a serious effort to educate alarm users. The alarm company would receive a copy of each notice to the end user as well. This helped us to spot patterns of misuse by specific clients and teach them how to better use their systems.
The last I heard the program was still working and the FA problem, while still an issue had been significantly reduced.
The interesting thing about the W Hartford ordinance is it was strongly supported by alarm users -- not just the police and fire departments.
Regards, Robert L Bass
We don't wait till some bureucrat sends us a letter about a false alarm. We know the next business day and have the problem solved before your bureucrat has mailed your precious letter. You probably should use another central station.
Bwahahahahahaha, gumdrop smiles in West Harford. He was the central station, wait'll he starts in on his firefighter buddies with the big boots.
false alarms down to 50% of all dispatches.
The objective is (or at least it should be) to cut the total number of false alarms. You don't adjust the percentage and you certainly can't adjust the number of burglaries. But cutting the number of false dispatches will have the affect of reducing the *precentage* of all alarms which are false.
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?
You don't need to equate the number of false alarms to anything. You only need to reduce the total number of false alarms. The ratio will take care of itself.
One possible side benefit of a significant decrease in false alarms would be an increase in police confidence in alarm signals. This in turn could cause the police to respond faster to alarm signals, occasionally resulting in captures.
attempting a burglary, for fear of getting caught.
If there were less false alarms, perhaps better response might actually have that result.
number of burglaries went down?
Nope, but if you studied statistics you wouldn't pose the question. :^)
number of burglaries, the false alarm percentage will be extremely hig...
That's patently untrue. The fact is that police in the inner cities, where burglary rates are highest, usually experience the highest numbers (and percentages) of false alarms. The problem isn't the number of burglaries. The problem is the number of poorly installed systems and the number of poorly trained alarm users. As long as people spend time making silly pseudo-statistical arguments rather than look for solutions the problem will continue to grow.
That is absurd. During the more than two decades I owned a small central station alarm company we maintained a very low percentage of false alarms. There were several things we did to accomplish that. First, I selected high quality merchandise. Second, we installed our systems carefully, placing motion and other sensors where they would have the least probability of falsing. Third, we carefully trained the entire family after each residential installation.
This isn't a boast. I always believed that what we did was not exceptional -- it was the minimum that every alarm company should do. Sadly, many alarm companies -- especially most of the so-called "authorized dealers" -- pay little or no attention to system design and customer training. There are plenty of good, competent installing firms out there. They do their best to install quality systems and teach their clients to use them right.
Unfortunately, the industry has been inundated over the past 15-20 years with companies whose management couldn't care less about false alarms. They slap in the cheapest junk they can get and exit the premises the moment the customer signs the check, hoping to finish the second installation before the end of the day.
Regards, Robert L Bass
Perhaps you and I are discussing two different points. I am saying that the statistic about 99% of alarms being false is a deceptive, misleading, and unfair measure of alarm system performance. The reasons I make that claim are:
All of these points are based on simple arithmetic. They're not a theory. The actual numbers of false alarms and burglary attempts don't affect the results, but if you like, use the numbers from your own city and do the math. There is no interpretation of the results possible, because the results of addition and division don't depend on interpretations.
If there is some part of this that isn't making sense to you, tell me what part, and I'll try to explain further. If we're discussing different issues, then I don't understand what you're getting at, and you can explain your point to me in greater detail.
- badenov
It has nothing to do with attempts. It has everything to do with the number of responses. There are no examples. Response X Findings = Percentage (It's the only equation)
Again, you're over-analyzing the information.
That's incorrect. Less responses as compared to actual crimes will indeed lower the percentage. That's the simple arithmetic you keep referring to.
That's true, but a completely retarded way to think about reduction.
That's fine, but we're not discussing crime. We're discussing a percentage based on the number of responses. Your digging for a diamond in a sand pile here....
In order for your "simple arithmetic" slogan to gain ground here, would be to recognize the starting numbers, and not ones interpretation of a perception. Your methods, those methods, are purely reactive, but not unexpected.
They don't affect the results? They are the results!
I'm not missing anything here. Rather, I'm enjoying a diluted, industry defensive response. IMO your response is typical...reactive. I fully understand the portions you are trying to represent here...none are a proactive approach, IMO.
You would think so, but it turns out the effect is insignificant. I had thought Jackcsg was just playing troll, enjoying an argument about whether the sky is really blue or not. But since you don't seem to get the math either, others probably don't either. Let's work through a realistic scenario and look at the numbers.
Suppose a typical small alarm company has 500 accounts, all of which are commercial. Suppose that company has an average of one false alarm per system per year, for a total 0f 500 false alarms. Suppose that the company also has the typical 99% false rate. That means there are 505 total dispatches, 500 false and 5 actual burglaries.
The NBFAA says that alarm companies should strive for a false alarm factor of 0.50 for commercial accounts. If this alarm company achieves that goal, it will have 250 false alarms from its 500 accounts. Presumably, the number of actual burglaries will remain at 5. There are 255 total dispatches, 250 false and 5 actual burglaries, and that is 98% false. A
50% reduction in the number of false alarms reduced the percentage by 1%.Suppose this company does an even better job, and reduces its false alarms down to 100. That means each system, on average, causes only one false alarm every five years. Not bad for commercial systems. But if there are
100 false alarms and 5 actual burglaries, the false alarm percentage is 95%. An 80% reduction in the number of false alarms cut the percentage by 4%.Now, suppose the number of actual burglaries drops from 5 to 3. That doesn't affect the number of false alarms, of course, but look what happens to the percentages: 100 false alarms out of 103 total dispatches is 97% false.
Suppose the number of actual burglaries increases from 5 to 10. 100 false alarms out of 110 total dispatches is 91% false.
Strange as it may seem, a reduction in the number of burglaries increases the false alarm rate, and an increase in the number of burglaries reduces the false alarm rate. Of course I am not advocating an increase in the number of burglaries as a way to reduce the false alarm rate. I'm just pointing out the silliness of measuring alarm system reliability by using a statistic that involves the number of burglaries.
Just the opposite is true. See the examples above. Varying the number of burglaries from 3 to 10 has a much greater effect on the false alarm percentage than reducing the number of false alarms from 500 to 100.
Suppose our fictional alarm company knocks itself out, and cuts false alarms all the way down to 50 per year (down from 500), for a false alarm rate of 0.1 false alarms per system, per year. Now, look at the false alarm percentage for different numbers of actual burglaries:
50 false alarms...0 burglaries...false alarm percentage = 100% 50 false alarms...1 burglary...false alarm percentage = 98% 50 false alarms...2 burglaries...false alarm percentage = 96% 50 false alarms...3 burglaries...false alarm percentage = 94% 50 false alarms...4 burglaries...false alarm percentage = 93% 50 false alarms...5 burglaries...false alarm percentage = 91% 50 false alarms...50 burglaries...false alarm percentage = 50%See what crap these percentages are?
- badenov
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.