Hacker News

points by Kinrany 10 hours ago | 0 comments

It should probably be X$ per alarm regardless of it being false or not, minus first N per year.

Why? The goal is to incentivize property owners to fix broken systems not to pay for the actual cost of responding to a real call. That's covered by taxes.

[–] ralegh 9 hours ago

Depending on who is paying and how much, someone might light a small fire to avoid the fine.

[–] mindslight 9 hours ago

Arson when the fire department is already on the way. Great idea! Firefighters hate this one simple trick.

[–] bell-cot 9 hours ago

I'd interpret the "minus first N per year" to mean that you get a few "free" fires per year - but after that your habits filling your closets with oily rags, overloading electrical extension cords, and smoking in bed will start to cost you.

[–] munk-a 9 hours ago

Fire is one of those things that really sucks for you - but also really sucks for your neighbors.

You never want to supply any reason for someone to demur about reporting a fire.

[–] eastbound 8 hours ago

I'm sure someone somewhere will interpret it a 3 free demos of firefighters at home for their kid, with sirens and light, pretty entertaining (It's a reference to the Freakonomics study that, if you make parents pay by the minutes for being late getting their kid, they basically take the fine as a slightly expensive childcare facility).

[–] uniq7 10 hours ago

That will also decrease the number of true positives