XPost: nyc.transit, nyc.politics, nyc.general 
 From: ob110ob@att.net 
  
 On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:01:09 +0000 (UTC), 
 steveo@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote: 
  
 >Agent_C   wrote: 
 >>On Sat, 22 May 2004 23:03:59 GMT, "Freedom Fighter"  
 >>wrote: 
 >> 
 >>>Who the hell are you to tell others they do not have the right to protect 
 >>>their property? 
 >> 
 >>Not saying that at all. We're (as in a bill in the City Council) 
 >>contend that one shouldn't be permitted to use AUDIO as a means of 
 >>protection, because of the negative impact it has on quality of life. 
 >>There are many, more effective, alternative technologies available to 
 >>protect a car from theft. 
 >> 
 >>>My car alarm has prevented a break-in more than once. 
 >> 
 >>In all probability, that's nothing more than an illusion on your part. 
 > 
 >According to insurance data, audible alarms have no effect 
 >on theft reduction. 
 > 
 >Source: 
 >Highway Loss Data Institute, "Insurance industry analyses and 
 >the prevention of motor vehicle theft," Business and Crime 
 >Prevention (Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke, eds.), pp. 
 >283-93, Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, Inc.: 1997 
  
   But that's because they can't look at the data where 
 the owner of the car was summoned by the alarm and the 
 theft was therefore prevented!   Or do they have that 
 data too? 
  
   Obwon 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)