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

31–40 of 71 posts

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

#31

Post by ficklepickle »

gerdesj wrote: post #29
jzwinck wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

That's really interesting! With North American rotary phones, you put your finger into the hole that corresponds to the number you want to dial, turn til you hit the backstop then release. There was no null position.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, which is entirely possible.

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

#32

Post by jayd16 »

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.

Rotary phones swirl the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere?

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

#33

Post by mannykannot »

noncoml wrote: post #30
gerdesj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 menti…

Time is not the most important thing. Dialing the correct number is more important.

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

#34

Post by mannykannot »

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.

> Valid technical reasons and crappy design are not mutually exclusive.

'Valid', in this context, means that they do in fact at least diminish the arguments against the chosen solution. If you want to argue that the specific reasons given by others here do not trump your preferred solution, you should make that specific argument, instead of falling back on generalities, especially when they are not so general.

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

#35

Post by uzoodoo »

gerdesj wrote: post #29
jzwinck wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

That's a really strange phone you're describing. Did it have a single hole on the dial? Where are you from?

I too used rotary phones - I'm 28 (if it makes a difference) and I grew up in a former Soviet republic. The phone had a dial with 10 holes in it: 1-9 followed by 0 (just like on a modern phone keypad, by the way). You stick your finger in a hole over the digit and rotate clockwise until the the stop. Then, take the finger out and wait for it to rotate back to the original position. Then you dial the next digit.

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

#36

Post by [deleted] »

gerdesj wrote: post #29
jzwinck wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

[deleted]

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

#37

Post by yohui »

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…

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

Numbers with widely separated digits such as 911 in the US or 119 in Japan are less likely to be accidentally dialed than numbers with similar or identical digits such as 999 or 112. As the article notes:

"However, around 35 per cent of calls do not involve actual requests for help, with the majority of these made by children playing with home phones or people accidentally dialling 999 or the European emergency number 112, often from a mobile handset in a pocket or handbag."

Though phones which map the emergency number to speed dial may negate the advantage.

Accidental calls waste time and potentially divert resources from real emergencies.

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

#38

Post by surou »

gerdesj wrote: post #29
jzwinck wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

Do you have a picture of this style of rotary phone? I've only ever seen or used the kind ficklepickle described (and that's all I can find pictures of online).

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

#39

Post by wlll »

microcolonel wrote: post #28
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…

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…

Realistically waiting an extra 6 seconds in an emergency isn't going to make much, if any, difference in the average home emergency situation.

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

#40

Post by surou »

uzoodoo wrote: post #35
gerdesj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

That's a really strange phone you're describing. Did it have a single hole on the dial? Where are you from? I too used rotary phones - I'm 28 (if it makes a difference) and I grew up in a former Soviet republic. The phone had a dial with 10 holes in it: 1-9 followed by 0 (just like on a modern phone keypad, by the way). You stick your finger in a hole over the digit and rotate clockwise until the the stop. Then, take…

Just FYI, Hacker News seems to be flagging most of your comments and making them invisible or "dead". I was browsing with showdead on and was able to "vouch" for your comment and raise it from the dead.

I'm not sure what to tell you to do to fix this problem, but I thought you might want to know. I think the site tries to trick you into thinking everyone can see your comments when they're actually made dead. So you might never know.

Post reply on HN