London Banter - View Single Post - Is it correct to use 999 in this case...?

Martin Underwood · January 21st 06, 12:41 AM posted to uk.transport.london

James Farrar wrote in
:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:50:49 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

David FitzGerald wrote:
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).

What do "primary" and "secondary" mean in this context?

"Primary" is the one the EU says we have to have; "secondary" is the
one we choose to have.

Has Europe always just had 112? I've got dim and distant memories of a
number beginning with 9 in some European countries - maybe pre-dating the
Europe-wide 112? Am I imagining this?

As I understand it, 999 was chosen in the UK partly because it consisted of
high digits and there fore was unlikely to be dialled by accident using old
pulse-dial phones. 112 is much easier to dial this way by accident - eg
random shorting or make/break of the phone line. So how come it wasn't an
issue for Europe if it was for the UK? Had mainland European countries
already turned off pulse-dialling at their exchanges by the time 112 was
chosen?