Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

JoeRaisin wrote:
> I agree that there are 2 sides to every story.
> However, in this thread the point was made that 99% of alarms are false
> alarms and this is bsed on the police reports.
> Bob has pointed out that on many occasions an alarm is reported as false
> when it is in fact not a false alarm.
> I have seen this myself.
>
> Most recently, police arrived at a commercial building (Medical supply -
> no drugs though) in response to a an alarm.  Saw no sign of forced entry
> and put it down as a false alarm.  We show up to find out why the door
> contact falsed.  Surface mounted contact on a steel door in the back of
> the building.  Door was slightly warped but still seemed to have plenty
> of make/break - unless I pushed on the top of the door.  But, I had to
> push pretty hard.  Marks on the door indicate someone was trying to pry
> the door open and set off the alarm.
>
> Not the cops fault in this case - there wasn't anything apparent - but
> not a false alarm either.
>
> But it will go down in the annual statistics as a false alarm giving
> further credence to the case that the 99% false alarm rate is not accurate.

I don't know what the reason is, but J Sloud only has to say that the
authorities "perceive" that the false alarm rate is 99% and that's what
we have to deal with.

But for some reason he seems to actually believe that it's an accurate
comparison to compare false alarms to number of burgalaries  ........
only. And everytime someone comes up with an analogy that proves his
opinion is wrong, he ignores it and says there's a 99% failure rate.

Granted there's a problem with the quantity of false alarms in the
industry but it's exacerbated by the police and the polititians because
they're looking at it with predjudice and as a revenue source. And
there first position is to get rid of the expenditure. They'll push it
how ever it takes to achieve their agenda. And no response is the
police version of a cure. We can't go along with it becaues then it
really WILL become a precident. We should fight it by educating them at
every turn. It's taken the industry quite a while to respond but it's
gradually getting better. There are still some areas that are
considering no response but now that some of the more publicized areas
have backed down and are trying alternative measures, it's easing off a
little. In my opinion, it'll get better before it again becomes an
issue. False alarms, even after all present measures are taken, are
ALWAYS going to be a problem for this industry. It was a problem 35
years ago and it will be in the future, in spite of video or any other
kind of verification. No response can't be allowed and eventually it'll
be seen that that will only increase the incidence of breakins and
intrusions.

I'd guess that fines and permits will be the best route to take since
the false alarms are never going to be quelled. People will either pay
the fines and have response, or they will lose the privilege just like
any other permit privilege. It's a matter of convincing the authorities
that if they manage the events, the response and permits, it a revenue
stream that can be adjusted to pay for itself. Technology will help
some, if we can just manage to push this industry into the 21st century
in spite of all the heels first kicking and screaming.

Manufacturers hold an important key. They develope/provide the
equipment and have a vested interest in educating the installation
trade. Personally, I don't think they've done a very good job ...... at
all.