The tone of John Wilson's article suggests that the author expected to have problems and was rewarded for his lack of effort. Wilson's dilemma is common among the masses who purchase without comparing products or the abilities of the personnel performing the installation.
The reference to alarms being temperamental or too sensitive is an inaccurate statement, when in fact the choice or adjustment of the equipment was improper. This arises out of inexperience, lack of caring or making profit more important than protection. (This type of dealer) proliferates in the marketplace by trading on paranoia and making a profit at it. This situation is called the "double rip-off." The consumer doesn't receive a fair value for monies spent when the system either fails to protect or turns out to be a neighborhood nuisance causing a non-usable condition. Luck would have it that in the non-usable condition the thief strikes and the second rip-off occurs.
Detectors that ignore wind, passing traffic and other passive actions have been on the market for a couple of years now. One wonders why Wilson didn't inquire about or refused to be informed of such devices after suffering nine months of false alarms.
There are many people unfamiliar with proper automotive protection systems, feeling the cost should be the same as a wax job or floor mats. Low-priced "bargain" car alarms have long convinced their purchasers that it pays to invest in a quality security system, which lets you sleep at night and doesn't keep you and your neighborhood awake.
