Re~Stirred Forum

Unfortunately, I have on two occasions mis-dialled the emergency number from my mobile. I don't think it's my fault though - it's the result of an emergency number chosen long before mobiles were invented.

Firstly, in many [?all] phone models, even if your mobile is locked if '999' is input the phone automatically unlocks and is able to call the number. Secondly, if pressure buttons are accidentally pressed whilst, for example, the phone is in your pocket, pressure is most likely to be repeatedly applied to the same area. A combination such as '999' is far likelier to be accidentally dialed than '157' or '348', for example.

It seems this is a serious problem since there are 15 million or more accidental calls each year. This must cost a large amount and potentially delays responses to genuine calls. Two things - stopping phones from automatically unlocking, and changing the emergency number to something like '911', would likely cut down accidental calls significantly. Good idea?

What if the phone didn't unlock and a person was in dire need of emergency help? I thought crank calls could be traced? If it could be proved a person was wasting the emergency service's time , then a fine could be in place , maybe take credit from the phone ,like an on the spot fine. Difficult one Derogatory (I do get what you mean re- unlocking key pad automatically by the way)

There's another article on the BBC- When are silent 999 calls cut off?. Obviously some foolish people do intentionally waste police time, but I suspect that is hugely outweighed by accidental calls.

I've never had a problem with the phone not unlocking! Even if you did, you'd only need to spend a few seconds re-starting it by taking the battery out and replacing it.

Perhaps this will be less of a problem in the future, as more people get smart phones that do not have key pads [and don't unlock quite so easily!].

changing it to 911 in today's modern society makes sense

Sally123 asked:

Some crank calls can be traced, but a large number of UK mobiles have no known owner. A few years ago an agreement was reached between the mobile phone providers, 999 operators and the emergency services that enabled a repeat crank caller's phone to be disconnected. No idea if that was successful.

Here in the US, "999" is "911". Our ares code is "919".

I think you can see the problem - particularly as we have recently been required to dial the full area code + number an ALL calls. (We got split into two area codes.)

So, it is difficult to balance the need to quickly access the emergency number with reducing mis-dialling. As nearly all 'phones are now push-button, "999" is better than "911" because the user does not have to shift to another button. (Previously, on a rotary 'phone, "999" was poor because each digit needed 0.9 seconds to dial.) Of course changing the emergency number would NOT be a good idea because there might be confusion at a critical moment.

Ideally, there would be no "9xx", certainly no "91x" area codes, but we are out of area codes. Bummer!

Hm, here's a similar problem-

The emergency internal number [for crash calls, fires, security alerts etc] in NHS hospitals is 2222. A prominent taxi firm in a certain town has 222222 as a memorable number. The problem is that if someone ordering a taxi from that town's hospital forgets to first dial '9' for an external line [something visitors/ patients may not realise they have to do], they will be put through to the internal emergency line. No idea if/ how often that happens!

Great idea Barnardhobbit. that may help stop people, from tying up an operator , with non emergency calls as well.