Re: NFPA's Creation of Security Standards/Codes

["Russ Brill" <russwbrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the breath of fresh air Nomen....... I think you hit a home run
with your commentary, I STRONGLY agree with your point of view.............
Regards, Russ

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:76a06cc89894bccb5059e2d88927757f@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Al Colombo said:
>
> >I would like to hear from those who are interested in the issue of NFPA
> >(National Fire Protection Association) and the creation of security
> >standards/codes: NFPA 730 and NFPA 731.
> >
> >I'm especially interested in whether you believe a codified standard
> >consisting of protective mandates and installation practices is in the
> >best interest of the client and the security industry in general.
>
> If you've read the NFPA proposals, you'll understand the flaw.  These
> idiots are assuming you can apply fire alarm principles to burglar alarms
> and thereby solve all the industry's problems.  They want plans and
> permits.  They want inspections.  They want third party certification.
And
> all this shows is a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference
> between burglar and fire alarms.
>
> The main purpose of regular fire alarm inspections is to help assure that
> the system will operate when needed.  Fire alarm systems just sit there
> most of the time, and if they fail, the severe form of failure is not to
> operate at all.  If that happens, people may die.  Yes, there are false
> fire alarms, but when those false alarms occur, it is likely to be due to
> something that can be detected during an inspection -- dirty smoke
> detectors, defective retards on a waterflow switch, and so on.
>
> I can inspect the hell out of a burglar alarm system today, and I cannot
> guarantee you that it absolutely will not cause a false alarm tonight.
>
> If the NFPA is concerned about workmanship standards, then UL has already
> done that:  UL 681 has been around for about 80 years now.  If the NFPA is
> concerned about extents of protection,  UL has addressed that too.  If the
> NFPA is concerned about assuring the effectiveness of alarm systems
through
> third party certification, they need to understand that UL spends maybe
one
> day a year with each listed company -- and does nothing more than a visual
> inspection of a handful of certificated systems.  Ultimately, the
> reliability and effectiveness of the systems depends on the skill and
> dedication of the installing company, and standards, inspections, and
> certifications will do nothing to improve that.
>
> This is all about making money.  Your customer will be paying for you to
> draw up plans for a strip-mall store's burglar alarm.  Your customer will
> then pay the cost of an inspection.  You will charge a UL certificate fee,
> and you'll pay UL about $1500 a year for the privilege.  If your customer
> remodels his store, you get to do it all over again.  Will you need to
take
> out a permit to add a door, or replace a defective motion detector?
>
> And what, exactly, will be the benefit from doing all of this?  The
> insurance industry has long since lost interest in UL certificates for
> purposes of insurance discounts.  They require certificates for a small
> number of high risk customers, but the numbers are way down from years
gone
> by.  False alarm reduction?  Nonsense.  And the best proof of this is to
> look at the British model.
>
> For many years, England has had detailed national standards for burglar
> alarm systems, standards that cover both installation and maintenance.
All
> monitored systems must receive an inspection twice a year.  Police only
> respond to alarms installed by companies that have been approved by the
> individual police department, and are approved by a national inspection
> body.  Those companies issue a certification for each and every system
they
> install, stating that it has been installed in accordance with British
> standards and is receiving those semiannual inspections.
>
> And what has been the result of all this regulation?  The false alarm rate
> per system was substantially the same as that in the United States.  What
> finally did lead to a dramatic reduction in false alarms was a ruthless
> system of false alarm quotas imposed by the police, plus requirements for
> some form of alarm verification.  Excessive false alarms from an account
> leads to termination of police response.  Excessive false alarms from an
> installing company leads to a refusal by the police to issue any new alarm
> permits for that company.  And none of this requires the submission of
> plans or field inspections by city officials or the police.
>
> The NFPA's approach is a money-making plan for the NFPA and the cities and
> UL.  It will not result in a reduction in false alarms, and any
improvement
> in the detection capabilities of alarm systems will be impossible to
> measure.  Plus, the insurance industry could care less about all of this.
>
> The NFPA is an anal-retentive organization that believes that all the
> world's problems will cease to exist if only there are a few more codes
and
> standards for people to follow.  Look at how the size of the fire alarm
> standards have increased over the last twenty-five years, and think how
big
> they will be in another hundred years, as the NFPA seeks to regulate every
> last detail of our industry.
>
> It particularly offends me that NFPA members aren't even allowed to vote
on
> proposals like this unless they make the pilgrimage to the convention to
> vote in person.
>
> - badenov
>