On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:04:43 +1100, "peter" wrote:

112 is the universal GSM emergency number. I believe it works on all GSM
mobile phones around the world.

112 is also the emergency number for all of the European Union.

http://www.sos112.info/

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:42:15 GMT, "Jack Taylor"
wrote:

I've never understood why we don't have a 'serious but not emergency' number
to call in this country, something like 888 would be logical. I believe that
that idea has been discussed and may be implemented in the future, although
I believe that they are going to use something far less easy to remember,
like 112 or something.

Ofcom has just consulted on this. See
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/snen/#content.

Ken wrote:

Ofcom has just consulted on this. See
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/snen/#content.

Thanks for that. I knew that they were up to something!

I don't agree with them, though, that 101 is an easy number to dial in such
circumstances - especially for the visually impaired. It requires finger
movement from the top to the bottom of the keypad and back again, giving two
likelihoods of a misdial as opposed to one if a single-digit three-digit
number is used (if you follow that!). Even for those with good vision it can
be difficult to navigate a keypad in poor lighting conditions or without
keypad backlighting. I wonder if the RNIB were consulted and their input
considered.

Marc Brett wrote:

112 is also the emergency number for all of the European Union.

most parts of the World seem to use either 112 or 911, though many
places also have an older number of their own which can still be used
as well, as we do with 999. There would seem to be a case for having
both 112 and 911 available to contact the emergency services, that way
a visitor from most of the World would be able to get through on a
number that they are familiar with.

On 19 Jan 2006 04:47:20 -0800, wrote:


Marc Brett wrote:

112 is also the emergency number for all of the European Union.

most parts of the World seem to use either 112 or 911, though many
places also have an older number of their own which can still be used
as well, as we do with 999.

They're all over the map:

http://www.sccfd.org/travel.html

Especially like the satanic Canadian hazmat number.

JRS: In article , dated Wed, 18
Jan 2006 22:42:15 remote, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Jack Taylor
posted :
Martin Underwood wrote:

I would have phoned 999: you were averting a potential accident.
Maybe you should have stopped at a motorway phone and used that
instead to report the debris. However if the debris had been on a
non-motorway road such as a dual-carriageway you wouldn't have had
that option and 999 would have been the only realistic option.

I've never understood why we don't have a 'serious but not emergency' number
to call in this country, something like 888 would be logical. I believe that
that idea has been discussed and may be implemented in the future, although
I believe that they are going to use something far less easy to remember,
like 112 or something.

Indeed.

In fact, all the public services, in a fairly wide sense, should have
national numbering - a "STD code" meaning "I want the one that deals
with matters local to this phone (or exchange) (or here, if dialling
from a mobile) followed by a fixed number for each service (Council, MP,
Police, Coastguard, Zoo?, BBC, Press, etc.) with perhaps two more
digits, always 00 for general and others for major departments - maybe
always 99 for "urgent".

A Zoo, for example, is not a public service; but it might be the right
place to report seeing a strange but not dangerous animal or bird.
Otherwise, put Zoo in the index book, with cross-reference to whoever
should take such calls.

Calls to departments would transfer to general after say ten rings;
calls to general maybe to 888 or another 24-h service after ten rings.

The definition of "local" would depend on the service; a call to
Coastguard from Wapping should get someone Thamesside, but one from
Birmingham would probably go to national HQ.

A different "STD code", with the same numbering to follow, could go to
national or regional, if appropriate.

At least around 1960, most London police stations were exchange 1113;
the idea is not entirely new.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:02:15 GMT, Steve wrote:

Good point. I've never had to use one of those phones, and I've always
wondered given the amount of traffic on the M25 at 6.00pm whether you'd be
able to hear the person on the other end!

Cheers.

Used one on a busy section of the M1 near Northampton on a Sunday
afternoon last September. It took them ages (several minutes) to
answer as well and was rubbish - barely audible unless I stuck my head
right inside the box! Next time I'll stick to the mobile...

wrote:
most parts of the World seem to use either 112 or 911, though many
places also have an older number of their own which can still be used
as well, as we do with 999. There would seem to be a case for having
both 112 and 911 available to contact the emergency services, that way
a visitor from most of the World would be able to get through on a
number that they are familiar with.

112 does work in the UK.

Tim

Martin Underwood wrote:

Jack Taylor wrote in
:

Martin Underwood wrote:

I would have phoned 999: you were averting a potential accident.
Maybe you should have stopped at a motorway phone and used that
instead to report the debris. However if the debris had been on a
non-motorway road such as a dual-carriageway you wouldn't have had
that option and 999 would have been the only realistic option.

I've never understood why we don't have a 'serious but not emergency'
number to call in this country, something like 888 would be logical.
I believe that that idea has been discussed and may be implemented in
the future, although I believe that they are going to use something
far less easy to remember, like 112 or something.

Yes I don't understand why there wasn't an 888 set up at the same time as
999. Instead they've only recently started giving police forces 0845 xxxxxx
numbers - but they are not the same throughout teh country so if you're
travelling, you've no idea which numebr to ring.

888 would be an incredibly stupid choice, as it would've restricted the
number of potential phone numbers available even more - it would be even
worse than the present situation where Londoners (and probably also the
rest of the country) have one too many digits...

The sensible alternative would be 911, as nearly everyone already knows
it by now.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

112 is the international standard emergency number. It works almost
anywhere in the world. 112, I believe, is the primary energency
response number in this country with 999 being the secondary (although
far better known one).