As a new user, I apologise in advance for posting an issue which may already have been covered.  I have looked by using the Search function-honest!  The National emergency line of 999 is taught at a very early age, but it's surprising how few people know that dialling 112 in an emergency will not only connect you to the local exchange, but the number can be used when the 'phone is virtually out of battery power.  In addition, by leaving the call connected for at least 90 seconds, you can be pinpointed by the mobile phone beacons in case you are in a very remote location.  As this number also works on land-lines, why don't we ditch 999 as the preferred emergency number?

999 is a relic from the days of pulse dialling, when 112 would have had too many false calls.

If 999 does not work in exactly the same way as 112, then this failure must be put right.

Until somebody comes up with an alternative use for 999, or sees one arising perhaps 5-10 years in the future, there is no reason to ditch it as one of two emergency numbers. One would be better, but having two is a modest and worthwhile price to pay for a degree of harmonisation.

There is good reason for teaching kids both 112 and 999, perhaps with a bias on the former. It is also necessary to point out that 911 belongs to a foreign country, along with many other items that are part of their informal education.

From the BT web site....


Does it make any difference if I use 999 or 112 to make my Emergency Call?

No. All calls to 999/112 are answered in the same way and are dealt with by one of the six Operator Service Centres.

If mobile companies exceptionally withhold cell information on calls dialled to 999. then it is this bizarre behaviour that has to be addressed. Can anybody offer evidence that this is what happens?

Furthermore, what evidence is there to show that 112 calls are routed differently from 999, and that handsets have a special battery reserve that is only used for making calls to 112?

I do not wish for Cassander to improperly suffer the fate of his mythical female namesake, however I fear that we may be in mythical territory here.

The OP asserts that the Mobile companies withhold call location information on 999 calls.

Reference to the emergency services attending the source of a "silent" call raises another interesting and possibly relevant point.

Many calls to 999 / 112 are not genuine reports of emergencies. Some are caused by accidental dialling on an unlocked mobile keypad. This leaves the Police with the problem of whether they should send someone out in every case, and then whether they should consider taking action against every accidental caller for what could be seen as a criminal offence. I recall a recent case where a Scottish force did not respond to an uncompleted call from the victim of an attack.

It could be that cases of 112 being dialled accidentally on a mobile are rarer than 999, and so silent calls to 112 generate a response, whereas those to 999 do not. I suspect that this would be a decision for each individual force. Such a policy could be what lies behind the suggestion of a difference in effect between the two numbers. (This is pure speculation! - someone may wish to do the research.)

999 was chosen in the days of actual telephone dials, as being easy to remember and dial, but almost impossible to dial by accident. It would not take too much imagination to come up with a feature to add to mobile keypad chips to prevent accidental dialling of an emergency number. Other members may share my experience of the fact that the locking mechanisms for keypads that remain exposed when the phone is not is use are far from foolproof.

Here is an overview of the  fixed telephone emergency services (999/112)


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/ind_guidelines/emer100...