4 ms·
Maybe the thinking was that you can easily slip with your finger or mindlessly dial something, then accidentally dialing a 1 or 2 is much more likely than doing
by DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
Maybe the thinking was that you can easily slip with your finger or mindlessly dial something, then accidentally dialing a 1 or 2 is much more likely than doing the same with 9 or 0 which needs ten times the pulses (and the time) needed for a 1. Having grown up with rotary phones, that would make sense to me.
- Angostura 3y agoThe UK originally considered using 111, but there were problems in that on windy days, trees etc brushing the lines could generate momentary disconnections = a pulse = digit 1. So false calls. 999 was choosen because it was easy to find the number 9 on the dial in the dark.
- gpvos 3y agoOn a rotary dial 9 is hard to find, 0 or 1 would be much easier. Was the UK early with button dials?
- pm215 3y agoIt's not that difficult -- you find the metal fingerstop, and then move two around from it (0 and then 9). 000 would be easier, but it seems like that was already taken for other purposes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- xhkkffbf 3y agoI believe this was a plot point in one of the original stories about Paddington bear. Something about his fat finger.