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?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article , Aidan Stanger wrote:

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.

911 would also restrict the available telephone numbers. There are already
numbers allocated which begin 911.

Brian
--
* * * * ** * * ** ** * *
* ** * * ** * * * *
* * * * * *

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Jack Taylor wrote in
:

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.

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.

But people know 911 as the *emergency* number in the US, so many of them
would assume it was also the emergency number here. It's therefore not
a sensible choice for a "serious but not emergency" number.

Is 113 available?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
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?

--
Richard J.

I think it means that there was an attempt to change to 112 for
standardisation reasons, but overwhelming complaints led to them having to
keep 999 as well. In BT phonebooks 999 is always shown before 112, but it
may well be that to meet some CCITT or EC standardisation the legalities are
the other way round.

Paul

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.

192 is surely already an alias of 999?

Why should many people here know the USA's emergency number at all
(e.g. I didn't until reading it here), let alone imagine it is also the
UK's one ?

TV, films, books. There seems a good case for making 999, 192, 911
all lead to the emergency service. In a moment of stress people
don't think straight. Let's open all possible doorways to assistance.

Laurence Payne wrote in
:

Why should many people here know the USA's emergency number at all
(e.g. I didn't until reading it here), let alone imagine it is also
the UK's one ?

TV, films, books. There seems a good case for making 999, 192, 911
all lead to the emergency service. In a moment of stress people
don't think straight. Let's open all possible doorways to assistance.

Is 192 an emergency number anywhere? In the UK it used to be directory
enquiries. I wonder if you mean 112?

In article , Richard J.
writes
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?

Absolutely nothing. Both are treated identically within the network.

And, no, there is no EU Directive requiring one to be shown before the
other. The only requirement is that 112 work.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:36:13 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

Is 192 an emergency number anywhere? In the UK it used to be directory
enquiries. I wonder if you mean 112?

Indeed I do.

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.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com