T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1715.1 | Decisive steps..... | SBPEXE::PREECE | Just gimme the VAX, ma'am... | Sat Mar 07 1992 00:38 | 21 |
| No. Instead, we read in "Digital Toady" that DEC are taking major
steps to reduce theft of and from company cars.....some more
cameras and an extra security patrol in the DECPark carpark.
Great. Assuming that I live in DECpark and never go anywhere else, my
car is now marginally safer.
Oh, and we also get told not to park anywhere that might attract
thieves. Like car parks, for instance.
(Well, if you were a car-thief, where would *you* go to find lots of
cars ?)
When is DEC's insurance company going to *compel* us to fit alarms and
/or immobilisers in all lease cars as standard ? In the sort of
numbers we're looking at ,it should be possible to negotiate a very
tasty discount deal with a supplier, and the reduction in direct and
indirect costs would soon cover it, I'm sure.
Ian.
(Who *doesn't* live in DEC park, and had his car broken into in a
well-lit, busy public car park !!! Grrrr....)
|
1715.2 | | FORTY2::PALKA | | Sat Mar 07 1992 13:41 | 13 |
| > When is DEC's insurance company going to *compel* us to fit alarms and
> /or immobilisers in all lease cars as standard ? In the sort of
> numbers we're looking at ,it should be possible to negotiate a very
> tasty discount deal with a supplier, and the reduction in direct and
> indirect costs would soon cover it, I'm sure.
DEC's insurance company doesn't cover the loss for car theft. So they
have no interest in forcing DEC to install alarms.
DEC pays the cost of the loss, and presumably has decided that alarms
cost more than they save in reduced loss.
Andrew
|
1715.3 | | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Sun Mar 08 1992 15:22 | 12 |
1715.4 | | LEECHS::hilton | How's it going royal ugly dudes? | Mon Mar 09 1992 12:22 | 4 |
| In the same article:
"Improved car locks and fitted alarms have not proved to be a cost
effective way of tackling the problem"
|
1715.5 | | FORTY2::PALKA | | Mon Mar 09 1992 12:28 | 4 |
| re .3
They are probably referring to items belonging to digital.
Andrew
|
1715.6 | | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Mon Mar 09 1992 12:30 | 7 |
|
> "Improved car locks and fitted alarms have not proved to be a cost
> effective way of tackling the problem"
... if this is the case then why bother even locking the car in the first place!
mb
|
1715.7 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Just who is Victor Ludorum? | Mon Mar 09 1992 13:17 | 12 |
| Personally, I'm not too sure that alarms are worth the effort. They
seem to go off all the time, and most people seem to ignore them.
For my Frogeye, which is unlockable, I have an immobiliser, and a
Krook-Lok to stop the sneak-thief. If I lived somewhere dodgy, and
wanted to leave it out often, I would use a clamp in addition to the
above. I'm thinking of fitting a second immobiliser.
I still maintain, you can't stop the really determined professional
from nicking your car.
Laurie.
|
1715.8 | It's the amateurs I worry about ! | SBPEXE::PREECE | Just gimme the VAX, ma'am... | Mon Mar 09 1992 18:02 | 12 |
1715.9 | Alarm INCREASES premium ! | FUTURS::FIDO | | Thu Jun 11 1992 17:55 | 15 |
| This topic reminds me of the following story :-
About six years ago, my then boss became the proud owner of a BMW
[ it takes all sorts ;-) ] and had to transfer his existing insurance
to cover the new car.
He thought that the quote he had been given was a bit on the high side
and so he told the insurance company that he had an alarm fitted, thinking
that this may persuade them to reduce the premium.
Did they ? Did they h*ll - instead, they increased it since he had
extra equipment ( i.e. the alarm ) fitted !
Terry
|
1715.10 | Cobra, Gemini, or Scorpian alarms & Norwich Union ? | LARVAE::DRSD27::GALVIN | Can we have summer now? | Fri May 07 1993 21:13 | 18
|