Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: 999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

#11

Post by noncoml »

PJDK wrote: post #7
noncoml wrote: post #3

999 was crappy design for "emergency" as, in the analog era, it would take almost 9x the time to dial it as that of a number like 111 or 112.

Interestingly the reason is analogue in nature. With pulse dialing a single pulse for a 1 could happen by accident quite easily (e.g. two lines knocking into each other). 999 can't happen accidentally. http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/hist...

Isn't that why the number 112 is usually used? Fast to dial, but not as easy to dial by mistake as 111.

Re: 999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

#12

Post by noncoml »

comstock wrote: post #6
noncoml wrote: post #3

999 was crappy design for "emergency" as, in the analog era, it would take almost 9x the time to dial it as that of a number like 111 or 112.

Well the Wikipedia article on the subject is very instructive: "The 9-9-9 format was chosen based on the 'button A' and 'button B' design of pre-payment coin-operated public payphones in wide use (first introduced in 1925) which could be easily modified to allow free use of the 9 digit on the rotary dial in addition to the 0 digit (then used to call the operator)" So there were valid technical reasons, as well as 999…

> So there were valid technical reasons

Valid technical reasons and crappy design are not mutually exclusive.

Re: 999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

#13

Post by aquadrop »

notwhoyouthink wrote: post #5
TeMPOraL wrote: post #2

There was an article on Tedium just ~1 week ago about the emergency numbers! http://tedium.co/2017/06/20/911-emergency-system-history/ It references the birth of 999, but then continues with the story of emergency numbers in the US. Definitely an interesting read.

Yikes, the font on that website is incredibly distracting. Hard enough that I went and downloaded Readability for Chrome just to get through the article. Reading more than a sentence caused my eyes to sort of glaze over and even when trying to focus I was reading but not grasping. Can't say I've ever had a font do that to me.

In cases like this, you can just "inspect" on the text block, find the rule for the font-family and set whatever font you like, no need for extensions :)

Re: 999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

#14

Post by ptaipale »

noncoml wrote: post #12
comstock wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the Wikipedia article on the subject is very instructive: "The 9-9-9 format was chosen based on the 'button A' and 'button B' design of pre-payment coin-operated public payphones in wide use (first introduced in 1925) which could be easily modified to allow free use of the 9 digit on the rotary dial in addition to the 0 digit (then used to call the operator)" So there were valid technical reasons, as well as 999…

> So there were valid technical reasons Valid technical reasons and crappy design are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but here it's hardly reasonable to describe the choice of numbers as "crappy design". It's a rational choice: a number that is easy to remember, and accidental calls don't happen too easily, making the service better available for actual emergencies.

Britain still talks of 999 only, even if 112 works just the same - today, as extremely few phones use decadic dialing any more, a number that would be represented by just four on-hook pulses is no longer any more of a problem from the point of accidentally dialing it.

Re: 999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

#15

Post by bmsleight_ »

ptaipale wrote: post #14
noncoml wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So there were valid technical reasons Valid technical reasons and crappy design are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but here it's hardly reasonable to describe the choice of numbers as "crappy design". It's a rational choice: a number that is easy to remember, and accidental calls don't happen too easily, making the service better available for actual emergencies. Britain still talks of 999 only, even if 112 works just the same - today, as extremely few phones use decadic dialing any more, a number that would be represented b…

Having to call 999 this week. I did not think 112 or 911 would work. Its the adrenalin that kicks in and 999 is just engrained to us in the UK.

Re: 999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

#16

Post by stuaxo »

emilyfm wrote: post #8
noncoml wrote: post #3

999 was crappy design for "emergency" as, in the analog era, it would take almost 9x the time to dial it as that of a number like 111 or 112.

It was the only number that could not be dialled by accident by letting go of the dial too early. The aim wasn't to dial quickly, it was to avoid accidental calls. Rotary dials in New Zealand were the other way around (sending ten minus the number dialled pulses) so the emergency number there was (and still is) 111 for the same reason: the hardest to dial by accident.

Apparently birds sitting on phone lines could trigger 111.

Re: 999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

#17

Post by grkvlt »

stuaxo wrote: post #16
emilyfm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was the only number that could not be dialled by accident by letting go of the dial too early. The aim wasn't to dial quickly, it was to avoid accidental calls. Rotary dials in New Zealand were the other way around (sending ten minus the number dialled pulses) so the emergency number there was (and still is) 111 for the same reason: the hardest to dial by accident.

Apparently birds sitting on phone lines could trigger 111.

Yes, in e.g. the UK, perhaps, where 1 was two pulses (although they would be more likely to dial 000, I would think) but not in NZ, for the reason given in the comment you replied to.

Re: 999: The world's oldest emergency services phone number

#20

Post by noncoml »

ptaipale wrote: post #14
noncoml wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So there were valid technical reasons Valid technical reasons and crappy design are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but here it's hardly reasonable to describe the choice of numbers as "crappy design". It's a rational choice: a number that is easy to remember, and accidental calls don't happen too easily, making the service better available for actual emergencies. Britain still talks of 999 only, even if 112 works just the same - today, as extremely few phones use decadic dialing any more, a number that would be represented b…

I don't think your reply follows logically.

What I said originally was that 999 is a bad choice as it takes considerably more time to dial.

The reply was that there were technical reasons for using 999, for which I replied that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Did you mean to reply to my original post maybe?

Post reply on HN