Sigma Sam

A private members Bill has been introduced by Norman Baker (Lib Dem, Lewes) to the House of Commons, which if passed would limit the volume of a vehicle's alarm siren to maximum of 55 decibels - equivelent to back-ground traffic noise.
Current legislation already limits siren volume to between 105 and 118 decibels (for a duration between 25 to 30 seconds and for a maximum of 10 triggers on any one circuit in a single armed period).

Personally, I feel "false triggers" are generally caused by poorly installed or adjusted systems and this is addressing the symptom and not the problem. A loud trigger at 3am would shame most people into having their systems adjusted, a quieter siren is more easily ignored, to trigger again.

Do you think a sounding siren is pointless and would rather have siren volume limited to this proposed level, or would you rather a siren made a potential thieves ears bleed?
I would be interested to hear everyones views on this.

The proposed introduction, if passed, is January 2007.
SS

wannaB4

I agree that false alarms are generally down to poorly setup systems, but sensors themselves can also go faulty over time causing problems. EU regs state the db level of a siren but not of the over all level, as in my case I have the standard siren, but also linked to the cars horn, set of air horns and two internal sirens. Seems to do the job, fortunatly I dont get false alarms. Although as someone once said to me, "if you get the occasional false, at least you know its working"
If you've ever heard the standard Audi alarms trigger you could be excused for thinking you've just trod on a cats tail, total waste of time.
55db is pointless, Alarms serve a purpose and need to make a more than just audible noise. I can understand that most people who dont have a nickable car will just ignore an alarm going off and see it as an irritation but getting rid of the noise to a pointless level just serves to give theives more time to get around other security without interuption, and, I would imagine, would then allow more cars to be stolen, and in turn putting up insurance. On the other hand security is becoming that more advanced that they go straight for the keys now, so maybe let them take the thing with no damage caused and rely on tracking/anti-hijack systems to do their thing.

just my views anyway

chiark

Not much more to add - those two posts have exactly my opinions in 'em. Seems like a poorly thought out piece of nanny state legislation to me.

j@directedtech

I remember this donut. He went on a couple of radio stations harping on about it. When he went on LBC, I rang up and "discussed" it with him and when he went on radio 5 live, our UK sales manager went on!! He was made to look very silly!

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The biggest problem is people who set them and "know" they are faulty or over-sensitive

There's a Rover 620 by me that goes off almost every night - you'd think they would pull off the horn connector (OEM alarm - sets when you lock it), or sort it properly


Thing is, the exact same can be said for house alarms. Which in reality cause far more nusience - as they always are in residential areas Currently on my estate on "quiet" weekends, there are at least 3 different house alarms that go off. One goes off literally ALL the time, I don't know where the house is, but they must have very tolerant or deaf neighbours! I'd have got out the ladders and ripped the bellbox off the wall if it was next door to me!

But whats happening about them?....nothing!

What is needed is a prohibition order to stop people continuing to use faulty/over sensitive alarms be house or car, until they have fixed it or adjusted the sensitivity - and can proove it.

But then again - the red tape that would cause would be mind boggling