Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"J. Sloud" <jsloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ttpim1d19ghg1rh14kqaae42n51b08i65g@xxxxxxxxxx
> On 2 Nov 2005 10:10:04 -0800, "Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> Do a google search for "99% false alarm" and you'll see reports from
> police departments all across the country showing false alarm rates at
> or above 99%.

Saying that is different than your statement of 99% system failures.

> Granted, most of these are nuisance alarms caused by end users
> triggering the system accidently.  The equipment is blame in far fewer
> cases.

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.

> The car wreck analogy is a bad one.

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.