Just channel hopping past this and saw them saying that a large number of 
english people don't know the phone number to ring in case of a breakdown.

Apparently we should be phoning 112!

Is that right? Do they really want you to phone the European equivalent of 
999 for a dead car?

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:g5g8e1$479$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> Just channel hopping past this and saw them saying that a large number of 
> english people don't know the phone number to ring in case of a breakdown.
>
> Apparently we should be phoning 112!
>
> Is that right? Do they really want you to phone the European equivalent of 
> 999 for a dead car?
>
> -- 


Yes. Its been that number for a while.

McK.

"McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message 
news:lmPek.246440$8k.147336@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:g5g8e1$479$2@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Just channel hopping past this and saw them saying that a large number of 
>> english people don't know the phone number to ring in case of a 
>> breakdown.
>>
>> Apparently we should be phoning 112!
>>
>> Is that right? Do they really want you to phone the European equivalent 
>> of 999 for a dead car?
>>
> Yes. Its been that number for a while.


I know 112 is the continental emergency number - I'm questioning if that's 
the appropriate one to ring just because you have run out of fuel [1]



[1] Yes , I know it would be if you broke down in the middle of a motorway , 
but not for routine faults.

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

> Is that right? Do they really want you to phone the European equivalent of
> 999 for a dead car?

Not in Italy. There are long lists at the side of roads and on the
autostrade they woould like you to phone 112, 114, 117 or 118 as
appropriate.

Anyway, when you pick up an SOS phone in the UK you are making a 999
call.

Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

> I know 112 is the continental emergency number - I'm questioning if that's
> the appropriate one to ring just because you have run out of fuel [1]

It is in Germany because it will let the police get to the scene quickly
in order to start the process of arrest and prosecution.

In article <1ik478q.6agmp8qbmdq8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth 
says...

> Anyway, when you pick up an SOS phone in the UK you are making a 999
> call.
> 
Seriously? What a fooking joke.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor  wrote:

> In article <1ik478q.6agmp8qbmdq8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth 
> says...
> 
> > Anyway, when you pick up an SOS phone in the UK you are making a 999
> > call.
> > 
> Seriously?

The call takes a separate (non-BT) circuit to get to the control room,
but the call must be treated as a 999 call at the control room.

> What a fooking joke.

Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up the
phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give the call
priority and apply the same service standard to such calls as to 999
calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to situations that
do require an emergency response, whereas most calls to 999 are from
morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to Yellow Pages. So arguably
it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as 999 calls than it does to
treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:6e39epF50najU1@mid.individual.net...
> In article <1ik478q.6agmp8qbmdq8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> says...
>
>> Anyway, when you pick up an SOS phone in the UK you are making a 999
>> call.
>>
> Seriously? What a fooking joke.
>

Not really.
The SOS phones are only on motorways or major A roads where a broken down 
car is much more serious than on a side street , so I can see the sense in 
letting the motorway control room treat it as an emergency and despatch a 
womble before it gets collected by a passing HGV

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> Conor  wrote:
> 
>> In article <1ik478q.6agmp8qbmdq8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
>> says...
>> 
>> > Anyway, when you pick up an SOS phone in the UK you are making a 999
>> > call.
>> > 
>> Seriously?
> 
> The call takes a separate (non-BT) circuit to get to the control room,
> but the call must be treated as a 999 call at the control room.
> 
>> What a fooking joke.
> 
> Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up the
> phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give the call
> priority and apply the same service standard to such calls as to 999
> calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to situations that
> do require an emergency response, whereas most calls to 999 are from
> morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to Yellow Pages. So arguably
> it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as 999 calls than it does to
> treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.

Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine emergency 
call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a mobile than by 
somebody running half a mile to a yellow box - and secondly, that the 
greatest danger anybody is going to face on a motorway is when they're 
out of the car and heading to that box. Surely encouraging them to get 
well behind the barrier and stay put is safer?

Adrian wrote:
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>> Conor  wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1ik478q.6agmp8qbmdq8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> Anyway, when you pick up an SOS phone in the UK you are making a
>>>> 999 call.
>>>>
>>> Seriously?
>>
>> The call takes a separate (non-BT) circuit to get to the control
>> room, but the call must be treated as a 999 call at the control room.
>>
>>> What a fooking joke.
>>
>> Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up
>> the phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give
>> the call priority and apply the same service standard to such calls
>> as to 999 calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to
>> situations that do require an emergency response, whereas most calls
>> to 999 are from morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to
>> Yellow Pages. So arguably it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as
>> 999 calls than it does to treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.
>
> Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine
> emergency call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a
> mobile than by somebody running half a mile to a yellow box - and
> secondly, that the greatest danger anybody is going to face on a
> motorway is when they're out of the car and heading to that box.
> Surely encouraging them to get well behind the barrier and stay put
> is safer?

It may come as a suprise to you and others, but not everyone has a mobile 
phone and that the roadside SOS phones are more reliable.

On 15 Jul, 11:33, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
> > %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > they were saying:
>
> >> Conor  wrote:
>
> >>> In article <1ik478q.6agmp8qbmdq8N%%ste...@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> >>> says...
>
> >>>> Anyway, when you pick up an SOS phone in the UK you are making a
> >>>> 999 call.
>
> >>> Seriously?
>
> >> The call takes a separate (non-BT) circuit to get to the control
> >> room, but the call must be treated as a 999 call at the control room.
>
> >>> What a fooking joke.
>
> >> Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up
> >> the phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give
> >> the call priority and apply the same service standard to such calls
> >> as to 999 calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to
> >> situations that do require an emergency response, whereas most calls
> >> to 999 are from morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to
> >> Yellow Pages. So arguably it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as
> >> 999 calls than it does to treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.
>
> > Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine
> > emergency call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a
> > mobile than by somebody running half a mile to a yellow box - and
> > secondly, that the greatest danger anybody is going to face on a
> > motorway is when they're out of the car and heading to that box.
> > Surely encouraging them to get well behind the barrier and stay put
> > is safer?
>
> It may come as a suprise to you and others, but not everyone has a mobile
> phone and that the roadside SOS phones are more reliable
>

Also, by using a roadside SOS phone, your position is immediately
known by the HA control room.

Andy Tucker  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> On 15 Jul, 11:33, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>> >> Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up
>> >> the phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give
>> >> the call priority and apply the same service standard to such calls
>> >> as to 999 calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to
>> >> situations that do require an emergency response, whereas most calls
>> >> to 999 are from morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to
>> >> Yellow Pages. So arguably it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as
>> >> 999 calls than it does to treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.

>> > Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine
>> > emergency call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a
>> > mobile than by somebody running half a mile to a yellow box - and
>> > secondly, that the greatest danger anybody is going to face on a
>> > motorway is when they're out of the car and heading to that box.
>> > Surely encouraging them to get well behind the barrier and stay put
>> > is safer?

>> It may come as a suprise to you and others, but not everyone has a
>> mobile phone and that the roadside SOS phones are more reliable

> Also, by using a roadside SOS phone, your position is immediately known
> by the HA control room.

Neither of those comments, whilst perfectly correct and valid to a 
greater or lesser degree, address the points I made.

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
[snip]

> > Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up the
> > phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give the call
> > priority and apply the same service standard to such calls as to 999
> > calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to situations that
> > do require an emergency response, whereas most calls to 999 are from
> > morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to Yellow Pages. So arguably
> > it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as 999 calls than it does to
> > treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.
> 
> Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine emergency
> call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a mobile than by
> somebody running half a mile to a yellow box

<cough> Orange box. Or increasingly, orange and grey pillars with an
orange door.

Anyway, yes when there's a major incident the incoming lines are jammed
by several dozens to hundreds of calls. All of them equally useless
since the conversation tends to be "Quick there's a terrible accident,
dead bodies everywhere." "Yes sir, can you tell me where you are?" "Umm
yes I'm near Stafford, or is it Northampton? I always get those two
confused, hang on I'll ask my mate... He says it's Preston."

At least with a call from a box the position is known to within 100
metres. And the call is routed straight to the control centre. A mobile
call goes to mobile operator then BT operator then the police and
possibly then onto the control room.

> - and secondly, that the greatest danger anybody is going to face on a
> motorway is when they're out of the car and heading to that box. Surely
> encouraging them to get well behind the barrier and stay put is safer?

Well, it's one reason that drivers are told not to drive down the hard
shoulder when lanes 1-3 are blocked. But in general there's not much
difference in risk for the short walk involved compared to (say) sitting
in a queue of traffic phoning the police or sitting on the hard shoulder
ditto.

On 15 Jul, 12:35, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Adrian  wrote:
> > %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > they were saying:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up the
> > > phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give the call
> > > priority and apply the same service standard to such calls as to 999
> > > calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to situations that
> > > do require an emergency response, whereas most calls to 999 are from
> > > morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to Yellow Pages. So arguably
> > > it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as 999 calls than it does to
> > > treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.
>
> > Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine emergency
> > call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a mobile than by
> > somebody running half a mile to a yellow box
>
> <cough> Orange box. Or increasingly, orange and grey pillars with an
> orange door.
>
> Anyway, yes when there's a major incident the incoming lines are jammed
> by several dozens to hundreds of calls. All of them equally useless
> since the conversation tends to be "Quick there's a terrible accident,
> dead bodies everywhere." "Yes sir, can you tell me where you are?" "Umm
> yes I'm near Stafford, or is it Northampton? I always get those two
> confused, hang on I'll ask my mate... He says it's Preston."
>
> At least with a call from a box the position is known to within 100
> metres. And the call is routed straight to the control centre. A mobile
> call goes to mobile operator then BT operator then the police and
> possibly then onto the control room.
>
> > - and secondly, that the greatest danger anybody is going to face on a
> > motorway is when they're out of the car and heading to that box. Surely
> > encouraging them to get well behind the barrier and stay put is safer?
>
> Well, it's one reason that drivers are told not to drive down the hard
> shoulder when lanes 1-3 are blocked. But in general there's not much
> difference in risk for the short walk involved compared to (say) sitting
> in a queue of traffic phoning the police or sitting on the hard shoulder
> ditto.

At the last major incident I saw, over 18 months ago on the M62,
witnesses had only conatcted the emergency via mobile phone. I don't
think anyone had used the orange box, so I did to make sure.

Mr Firth has forgot the driver locator signs http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/17088.aspx.
Is that because they prove I was right and he was bending over
backwards to prove me wrong.

On 15 Jul, 12:34, Andy Tucker  wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 11:33, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Adrian wrote:
> > > %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > > they were saying:
>
> > >> Conor  wrote:
>
> > >>> In article <1ik478q.6agmp8qbmdq8N%%ste...@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> > >>> says...
>
> > >>>> Anyway, when you pick up an SOS phone in the UK you are making a
> > >>>> 999 call.
>
> > >>> Seriously?
>
> > >> The call takes a separate (non-BT) circuit to get to the control
> > >> room, but the call must be treated as a 999 call at the control room.
>
> > >>> What a fooking joke.
>
> > >> Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up
> > >> the phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give
> > >> the call priority and apply the same service standard to such calls
> > >> as to 999 calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to
> > >> situations that do require an emergency response, whereas most calls
> > >> to 999 are from morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to
> > >> Yellow Pages. So arguably it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as
> > >> 999 calls than it does to treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.
>
> > > Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine
> > > emergency call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a
> > > mobile than by somebody running half a mile to a yellow box - and
> > > secondly, that the greatest danger anybody is going to face on a
> > > motorway is when they're out of the car and heading to that box.
> > > Surely encouraging them to get well behind the barrier and stay put
> > > is safer?
>
> > It may come as a suprise to you and others, but not everyone has a mobile
> > phone and that the roadside SOS phones are more reliable
>
> Also, by using a roadside SOS phone, your position is immediately
> known by the HA control room.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've been asked for the box number and which way I'm going.

On Jul 15, 12:38 pm, Adrian  wrote:
> Andy Tucker  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Jul, 11:33, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Adrian wrote:
> >> >> Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up
> >> >> the phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give
> >> >> the call priority and apply the same service standard to such calls
> >> >> as to 999 calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to
> >> >> situations that do require an emergency response, whereas most calls
> >> >> to 999 are from morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to
> >> >> Yellow Pages. So arguably it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as
> >> >> 999 calls than it does to treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.
> >> > Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine
> >> > emergency call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a
> >> > mobile than by somebody running half a mile to a yellow box - and
> >> > secondly, that the greatest danger anybody is going to face on a
> >> > motorway is when they're out of the car and heading to that box.
> >> > Surely encouraging them to get well behind the barrier and stay put
> >> > is safer?
> >> It may come as a suprise to you and others, but not everyone has a
> >> mobile phone and that the roadside SOS phones are more reliable
> > Also, by using a roadside SOS phone, your position is immediately known
> > by the HA control room.
>
> Neither of those comments, whilst perfectly correct and valid to a
> greater or lesser degree, address the points I made.

Do you think they were intended to? The clue is in the first word.

On Jul 15, 12:35 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Adrian  wrote:
> > %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > they were saying:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up the
> > > phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give the call
> > > priority and apply the same service standard to such calls as to 999
> > > calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to situations that
> > > do require an emergency response, whereas most calls to 999 are from
> > > morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to Yellow Pages. So arguably
> > > it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as 999 calls than it does to
> > > treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.
>
> > Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine emergency
> > call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a mobile than by
> > somebody running half a mile to a yellow box
>
> <cough> Orange box. Or increasingly, orange and grey pillars with an
> orange door.
>
> Anyway, yes when there's a major incident the incoming lines are jammed
> by several dozens to hundreds of calls. All of them equally useless
> since the conversation tends to be "Quick there's a terrible accident,
> dead bodies everywhere." "Yes sir, can you tell me where you are?" "Umm
> yes I'm near Stafford, or is it Northampton? I always get those two
> confused, hang on I'll ask my mate... He says it's Preston."
>
> At least with a call from a box the position is known to within 100
> metres.

The position of the accident or the phone? The accident could be a lot
further than 100 metres away.

On 16 Jul, 09:41, "Man at B&Q"  wrote:
> On Jul 15, 12:35 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Adrian  wrote:
> > > %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > > they were saying:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > > Why? The person answering the call does not know, until they pick up the
> > > > phone, what the nature of the call is. It makes sense to give the call
> > > > priority and apply the same service standard to such calls as to 999
> > > > calls. The majority of calls over SOS phones relate to situations that
> > > > do require an emergency response, whereas most calls to 999 are from
> > > > morons who are bored/lonely/too lazy to use to Yellow Pages. So arguably
> > > > it makes more sense to treat SOS boxes as 999 calls than it does to
> > > > treat calls over PSTN as 999 calls.
>
> > > Apart from a couple of subtle details - firstly, that a genuine emergency
> > > call from a motorway is far more likely to be made via a mobile than by
> > > somebody running half a mile to a yellow box
>
> > <cough> Orange box. Or increasingly, orange and grey pillars with an
> > orange door.
>
> > Anyway, yes when there's a major incident the incoming lines are jammed
> > by several dozens to hundreds of calls. All of them equally useless
> > since the conversation tends to be "Quick there's a terrible accident,
> > dead bodies everywhere." "Yes sir, can you tell me where you are?" "Umm
> > yes I'm near Stafford, or is it Northampton? I always get those two
> > confused, hang on I'll ask my mate... He says it's Preston."
>
> > At least with a call from a box the position is known to within 100
> > metres.
>
> The position of the accident or the phone? The accident could be a lot
> further than 100 metres away.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Even the driver locator signs are around 500 metres apart

"Man at B&Q"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> At least with a call from a box the position is known to within 100
>> metres.

> The position of the accident or the phone? The accident could be a lot
> further than 100 metres away.

Indeed. It could be a mile away. Which, of course, has also added the 
time taken to walk/run a mile (and recover sufficiently to speak 
intelligibly on the phone) to the time taken to inform the control centre.

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:g5hhb7$vr0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message 
> news:lmPek.246440$8k.147336@newsfe18.ams2...
>>
>> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message 
>> news:g5g8e1$479$2@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Just channel hopping past this and saw them saying that a large number 
>>> of english people don't know the phone number to ring in case of a 
>>> breakdown.
>>>
>>> Apparently we should be phoning 112!
>>>
>>> Is that right? Do they really want you to phone the European equivalent 
>>> of 999 for a dead car?
>>>
>> Yes. Its been that number for a while.
>
>
> I know 112 is the continental emergency number - I'm questioning if that's 
> the appropriate one to ring just because you have run out of fuel [1]
>
>
>
> [1] Yes , I know it would be if you broke down in the middle of a motorway 
> , but not for routine faults.
>

For me it *would* have to be an emergency to ring that number. If I ran out 
of fuel then I'd phone the breakdown services.

McK.

Adrian  wrote:

> "Man at B&Q"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> At least with a call from a box the position is known to within 100
> >> metres.
> 
> > The position of the accident or the phone? The accident could be a lot
> > further than 100 metres away.
> 
> Indeed. It could be a mile away.

Errrm, no.

And it's stil better than trying to locate some dunce on a mobile phone
who says he's near Swindon, and who confirms that he's on the M4 and it
turns out that he's near Swinton on the M60.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > The position of the accident or the phone? The accident could be a
>> > lot further than 100 metres away.

>> Indeed. It could be a mile away.

> Errrm, no.

Errrm, yes.

The phones are a mile apart.

If the collision happens just before a phone, and makes it impossible or 
hazardous to reach that phone, the next nearest available phone is the 
one a mile behind you.

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> > The position of the accident or the phone? The accident could be a
> >> > lot further than 100 metres away.
> 
> >> Indeed. It could be a mile away.
> 
> > Errrm, no.
> 
> Errrm, yes.
> 
> The phones are a mile apart.

No they aren't.

> If the collision happens just before a phone, and makes it impossible or
> hazardous to reach that phone, the next nearest available phone is the
> one a mile behind you.

<snork> "Nice Try" to quote Hansen.

I'll take it that you have experience of an accident which miraculously
kills every single motorway user on both carriageways with the exception
of a single individual who happens to be located at the exact scene of
the accident which fills the carriageway and verges with vehicles piled
so high and packed so tightly that there's no way around?

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> The phones are a mile apart.

> No they aren't.

They aren't? They always used to be. What are they now, kilometre? On all 
m-ways?

>> If the collision happens just before a phone, and makes it impossible
>> or hazardous to reach that phone, the next nearest available phone is
>> the one a mile behind you.

> <snork> "Nice Try" to quote Hansen.
> 
> I'll take it that you have experience of an accident which miraculously
> kills every single motorway user on both carriageways with the exception
> of a single individual who happens to be located at the exact scene of
> the accident which fills the carriageway and verges with vehicles piled
> so high and packed so tightly that there's no way around?

I take it you'll point to where I suggested that?

There's never been a m-way crash where the phone's been skittled?
There's never been a m-way crash where there's a pile of bent metal 
across the whole carriageway?

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> The phones are a mile apart.
> 
> > No they aren't.
> 
> They aren't? They always used to be.

Haven't been for ages and the mile was nominal at best. Current spacings
are anywhere from 100 metres all the way up to 2.3 km.

> What are they now, kilometre? On all 
> m-ways?

They're all spaced at metric distances and have been for what feels like
forever.
 
> >> If the collision happens just before a phone, and makes it impossible
> >> or hazardous to reach that phone, the next nearest available phone is
> >> the one a mile behind you.
> 
> > <snork> "Nice Try" to quote Hansen.
> > 
> > I'll take it that you have experience of an accident which miraculously
> > kills every single motorway user on both carriageways with the exception
> > of a single individual who happens to be located at the exact scene of
> > the accident which fills the carriageway and verges with vehicles piled
> > so high and packed so tightly that there's no way around?
> 
> I take it you'll point to where I suggested that?

Yes, in your suggestion that the motorway coudl be blocked in such a way
that only one person has the ability to reach a phone and that phone is
at the limit.
 
> There's never been a m-way crash where the phone's been skittled?

I take it you'll point to where I suggested that?

> There's never been a m-way crash where there's a pile of bent metal 
> across the whole carriageway?

I take it you'll point to where I suggested that?


Good game, good game. Do you want to go for the Brucey bonus?

On 2008-07-16, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Adrian  wrote:
>
>> If the collision happens just before a phone, and makes it impossible or
>> hazardous to reach that phone, the next nearest available phone is the
>> one a mile behind you.
>
><snork> "Nice Try" to quote Hansen.
>
> I'll take it that you have experience of an accident which miraculously
> kills every single motorway user on both carriageways with the exception
> of a single individual who happens to be located at the exact scene of
> the accident which fills the carriageway and verges with vehicles piled
> so high and packed so tightly that there's no way around?

So no motorway phone has ever been damaged in a collision, or by fire in
the aftermath of a collision?  And I certainly wouldn't walk through a
spill of potentially hazardous materials to reach an emergency phone.

-- 
David Taylor

David Taylor  wrote:

> On 2008-07-16, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Adrian  wrote:
> >
> >> If the collision happens just before a phone, and makes it impossible or
> >> hazardous to reach that phone, the next nearest available phone is the
> >> one a mile behind you.
> >
> ><snork> "Nice Try" to quote Hansen.
> >
> > I'll take it that you have experience of an accident which miraculously
> > kills every single motorway user on both carriageways with the exception
> > of a single individual who happens to be located at the exact scene of
> > the accident which fills the carriageway and verges with vehicles piled
> > so high and packed so tightly that there's no way around?
> 
> So no motorway phone has ever been damaged in a collision, or by fire in
> the aftermath of a collision?  And I certainly wouldn't walk through a
> spill of potentially hazardous materials to reach an emergency phone.

Uhh hmm, and the fact that everyone else on the motorway in both
directions would need to be dead/incapacitated in some way?

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> So no motorway phone has ever been damaged in a collision, or by fire
>> in the aftermath of a collision?  And I certainly wouldn't walk through
>> a spill of potentially hazardous materials to reach an emergency phone.

> Uhh hmm, and the fact that everyone else on the motorway in both
> directions would need to be dead/incapacitated in some way?

The vehicles in front may very well not have stopped.

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> So no motorway phone has ever been damaged in a collision, or by fire
> >> in the aftermath of a collision?  And I certainly wouldn't walk through
> >> a spill of potentially hazardous materials to reach an emergency phone.
> 
> > Uhh hmm, and the fact that everyone else on the motorway in both
> > directions would need to be dead/incapacitated in some way?
> 
> The vehicles in front may very well not have stopped.

And the opposite carriageway?

Ic an assure you that I've never encountered a situation when there has
been an incident on the motorway and the control office staff have said
"I wish we had more phone calls."

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > Uhh hmm, and the fact that everyone else on the motorway in both
>> > directions would need to be dead/incapacitated in some way?

>> The vehicles in front may very well not have stopped.

> And the opposite carriageway?

Probably too busy rubber-necking then continuing on their way - or having 
a pile-up of their own.

> I can assure you that I've never encountered a situation when there has
> been an incident on the motorway and the control office staff have said
> "I wish we had more phone calls."

No, because they're flooding in via mobiles...

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> > Uhh hmm, and the fact that everyone else on the motorway in both
> >> > directions would need to be dead/incapacitated in some way?
> 
> >> The vehicles in front may very well not have stopped.
> 
> > And the opposite carriageway?
> 
> Probably too busy rubber-necking then continuing on their way - or having
> a pile-up of their own.
> 
> > I can assure you that I've never encountered a situation when there has
> > been an incident on the motorway and the control office staff have said
> > "I wish we had more phone calls."
> 
> No, because they're flooding in via mobiles...

Handled by other people...

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > I can assure you that I've never encountered a situation when there
>> > has been an incident on the motorway and the control office staff
>> > have said "I wish we had more phone calls."

>> No, because they're flooding in via mobiles...

> Handled by other people...

So roughly how many people are using each of the surrounding motorway 
phones simultaneously? Or is there a queue parked up by each one?

On 16 Jul, 12:59, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Adrian  wrote:
> > "Man at B&Q"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > they were saying:
>
> > >> At least with a call from a box the position is known to within 100
> > >> metres.
>
> > > The position of the accident or the phone? The accident could be a lot
> > > further than 100 metres away.
>
> > Indeed. It could be a mile away.
>
> Errrm, no.
>
> And it's stil better than trying to locate some dunce on a mobile phone
> who says he's near Swindon, and who confirms that he's on the M4 and it
> turns out that he's near Swinton on the M60.

The phones on the M60 are about a mile apart certainly more than 200
metres it would take to be able locate an incident to the nearest 100
m.

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> > I can assure you that I've never encountered a situation when there
> >> > has been an incident on the motorway and the control office staff
> >> > have said "I wish we had more phone calls."
> 
> >> No, because they're flooding in via mobiles...
> 
> > Handled by other people...
> 
> So roughly how many people are using each of the surrounding motorway
> phones simultaneously? Or is there a queue parked up by each one?

For a major incident there can be up to a dozen calls from different
phones, both sides of the motorway. Everyone likes to have their say,
everyone thinks they are unique and different.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> >> > I can assure you that I've never encountered a situation when
>> >> > there has been an incident on the motorway and the control office
>> >> > staff have said "I wish we had more phone calls."

>> >> No, because they're flooding in via mobiles...

>> > Handled by other people...

>> So roughly how many people are using each of the surrounding motorway
>> phones simultaneously? Or is there a queue parked up by each one?

> For a major incident there can be up to a dozen calls from different
> phones, both sides of the motorway. Everyone likes to have their say,
> everyone thinks they are unique and different.

Gosh. Up to a dozen. No wonder the call centre's swamped.

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> >> > I can assure you that I've never encountered a situation when
> >> >> > there has been an incident on the motorway and the control office
> >> >> > staff have said "I wish we had more phone calls."
> 
> >> >> No, because they're flooding in via mobiles...
> 
> >> > Handled by other people...
> 
> >> So roughly how many people are using each of the surrounding motorway
> >> phones simultaneously? Or is there a queue parked up by each one?
> 
> > For a major incident there can be up to a dozen calls from different
> > phones, both sides of the motorway. Everyone likes to have their say,
> > everyone thinks they are unique and different.
> 
> Gosh. Up to a dozen. No wonder the call centre's swamped.

There's one, possibly two people handling calls from an area covering
(about) four counties. Everyone seems to think there's only ever one
incident in progress at a time, see above about "unique and different".

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> >> So roughly how many people are using each of the surrounding
>> >> motorway phones simultaneously? Or is there a queue parked up by
>> >> each one?

>> > For a major incident there can be up to a dozen calls from different
>> > phones, both sides of the motorway. Everyone likes to have their say,
>> > everyone thinks they are unique and different.

>> Gosh. Up to a dozen. No wonder the call centre's swamped.

> There's one, possibly two people handling calls from an area covering
> (about) four counties. Everyone seems to think there's only ever one
> incident in progress at a time, see above about "unique and different".

Or perhaps people assumed the call centres weren't so short staffed?