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

21–30 of 71 posts

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

#21

Post by gerdesj »

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.

I'm sure I wont be the first or the last to point out that you are clearly too young to remember pulse dialing with a rotary input device.

The whole point of 999 was that a nine was the only number you could guarantee to accurately dial blind on a rotary input device with only your sense of touch and a little knowledge about the device itself available to you.

I'm also not too sure why any other number would be preferable. 999 really stands out whereas all the other emergency numbers across the world do not. I'll accept that because I'm a Brit that I have been conditioned to 999 being THE emergency number might bias me somewhat but I think my point still stands: 999 is far more obvious than any other emergency number.

I do a lot of (modern ie VoIP) telephony work and can only think that the 9 for an outside line plus rubbish dial plans and crap hardware and programming meant that 999 might not work for some systems. I've also explored the "not British" criteria for the number ... 8)

Can anyone explain why 999 is not the best emergency number ever chosen?

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

#22

Post by jzwinck »

gerdesj wrote: post #21
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.

I'm sure I wont be the first or the last to point out that you are clearly too young to remember pulse dialing with a rotary input device. The whole point of 999 was that a nine was the only number you could guarantee to accurately dial blind on a rotary input device with only your sense of touch and a little knowledge about the device itself available to you. I'm also not too sure why any other number would be prefe…

If you look at images of rotary phone dials I think you will see that it is 0 and 1 that can be dialed easily without vision. Only in New Zealand can 9 be dialed so easily (they use a different dial, however unbelievably).

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

#23

Post by [deleted] »

jimmytidey wrote: post #4
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.

I was told it was selected because it can be dialed in the dark - just go all the way way with the rotor three times. I've always found that 999 sounds like an emergency, the biggest number. 112 seems absolutely arbitrary to me.

[deleted]

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

#24

Post by gerdesj »

gerdesj wrote: post #21
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.

I'm sure I wont be the first or the last to point out that you are clearly too young to remember pulse dialing with a rotary input device. The whole point of 999 was that a nine was the only number you could guarantee to accurately dial blind on a rotary input device with only your sense of touch and a little knowledge about the device itself available to you. I'm also not too sure why any other number would be prefe…

I've just read a few other comments here and it seems that I might be a little older than most of the HN commentards, these days.

When I was a lad you put your finger into the bottom left hole of a rotary dial and moved the dial clockwise until it was over the chosen number. You then released your finger and allowed the dial to roll back to null. You then dialled the next number etc

You did not press keys. That is why 999 was chosen. Telephones with rotary dials had obvious clues to where the home "hole" was - where you would dial from - and you would hit the backstop when you hit nine when you rotated the dial.

It's not rocket science 8)

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

#25

Post by gerdesj »

noncoml wrote: post #20
ptaipale wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

You are probably not old enough to know why you use the word "dial" when you refer to pressing keys.

999 looks wrong on any phone and hence elicits a response, 112 looks like yet another extension. The only reason you associate 112 with emergency services is because that is what you have learned from an early age.

I'll assert that 999 is a far better number for an emergency - it does not look anything like any other number that you would want to dial unless you have a real problem.

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

#27

Post by 4rt »

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.

firefox reading mode (i believe it's the same devs as that chrome extension? icbw) is the first button i press on most sites. i couldn't do without it.

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

#28

Post by microcolonel »

gerdesj wrote: post #21
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.

I'm sure I wont be the first or the last to point out that you are clearly too young to remember pulse dialing with a rotary input device. The whole point of 999 was that a nine was the only number you could guarantee to accurately dial blind on a rotary input device with only your sense of touch and a little knowledge about the device itself available to you. I'm also not too sure why any other number would be prefe…

The problem is the amount of time you spend waiting for the dial to return. At the standard rate of ten pulses per second, you would end up waiting nine pulses three times or (0.9 * 3)s plus the pause (approximately 3 pulses wide) for the dial to return, plus however long it took you to finger and wind the dial three times. Could easily take upward of six seconds.

111 (if it could feasibly be allocated) would be the best three-digit code. You would spend the least amount of time rewinding, fingering, and returning. The minimum time per symbol would be 0.1s for the single pulse, ~0.3 seconds for the pause (that section on the dial between the backstop and the 1 digit hole) and about 0.1-0.2s for the finger and wind (reduced due to Fitts's law, and easier for the blind since it is the first hole from the backstop rather than the second). These factors combined could cut the dial time easily in half.

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

#29

Post by gerdesj »

jzwinck wrote: post #22
gerdesj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure I wont be the first or the last to point out that you are clearly too young to remember pulse dialing with a rotary input device. The whole point of 999 was that a nine was the only number you could guarantee to accurately dial blind on a rotary input device with only your sense of touch and a little knowledge about the device itself available to you. I'm also not too sure why any other number would be prefe…

If you look at images of rotary phone dials I think you will see that it is 0 and 1 that can be dialed easily without vision. Only in New Zealand can 9 be dialed so easily (they use a different dial, however unbelievably).

I used to use the bloody things (I'm 47) - I suspect your research is based on pictures and supposition.

At rest the rotary dial was at say null. As soon as you moved it over a number and then released it, that was the number that was dialled. 0 and 1 were first (obvs). When you hit the backstop (a small metal shim) then you had hit nine. It isn't as bad an interface as it might sound. You would get feedback via a series of clicks as the dial returned to null and also via force (springs etc).

There really was a good reason for picking 999 originally and the world has moved on since but I still assert that 999 is a far better number (or nowadays: a symbol) for invoking an emergency call than any other number.

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

#30

Post by noncoml »

gerdesj wrote: post #25
noncoml wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"What I said originally was that 999 is a bad choice as it takes considerably more time to dial." You are probably not old enough to know why you use the word "dial" when you refer to pressing keys. 999 looks wrong on any phone and hence elicits a response, 112 looks like yet another extension. The only reason you associate 112 with emergency services is because that is what you have learned from an early age. I'll a…

> You are probably not old enough to know why you use the word "dial" when you refer to pressing keys.

Actually it's the opposite. You sound like one who has never tried to "dial" 999 on a rotary dial when seconds are the difference between life and death. 999 in that moment feels like an awful choice.

We are taking about emergency and as such the most important thing is time and not the rest of the reasons you mentioned.

Post reply on HN