The Inquirer-Home

UK shuns Ecall life-saver

EC scheme enables cars to report their own crashes, with location
Thu Feb 25 2010, 11:30

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION is trying to persuade Britain to enforce a system that would save an estimated 2,500 lives each year across the continent by enabling cars to report their own crashes.

The Ecall system, as it is called, is an extension of the e112 scheme, which automatically provides location information when an emergency call is made using 999 in the UK, or 112 anywhere in Europe.

In an Ecall-equipped vehicle, an emergency call with location information would be triggered automatically by the same sensors that cause protective airbags to explode in a crash.

Research shows that some six in ten mobile emergency callers cannot say where they are, and of course people involved in car crashes may not be able to make a call at all.

All new phones are supposed to support e112, which also requires the cooperation of operators, who may have to provide location information by cellular triangulation if a handset does not support GPS.

New cars were supposed to support Ecall from this year under an EC plan, but the UK has refused to make it mandatory for vehicles sold in Britain, though emergency services here can respond to Ecalls from cars fitted with the system and use the location information provided.

The Department for Transport said in a statement said that an independent review in 2006 indicated that the benefits of the system would not justify the cost of implementing it in the UK, which had "some of the safest roads in the world."

The statement said, "Road safety is still one of the Department's highest priorities. We believe that technology has an important role to play in this, which is why we have supported moves to increase awareness of vehicle safety systems such as electronic stability control across the EU. However, it is important that each initiative is carefully considered on its merits."

It went on, "We are currently discussing eCall with key UK stakeholders and undertaking a review of the latest developments, and continue to discuss our concerns with the European Commission."

The support infrastructure needed by Ecall is already in place, so the costs involved would appear to be that of fitting the system to cars, and the cost of GPS has dropped considerably since 1996 when the DfT assessment was made.

An EC spokeswoman said discussions were continuing with the DfT. "We are trying to provide additional data that would help [the Ecall] case," she said. µ

Share this:

Comments
The Cost.

The obvious cost is the lack of personal integrity stemming from this device getting new "features" later on.
Features like automatic reporting of speeding, tracking signal enabled by remote control (intended for use by the Police but just as easily used by criminals), etc.

posted by : Olle P, 26 February 2010 Complain about this comment
@Steve T

"at costs that outweigh the benefits" What is the cost, and how does it compare to 2,500 lives a year.

posted by : mike, 25 February 2010 Complain about this comment
UK

The UK has safest roads as most of them are so wavy that doing any more than 30mph will probably cause sea sickness. Or you car will rattle all the nuts and bolts loose.

Then there is the fact that British drivers have not learned to overtake .. and fair nuff .. most the roads are not big enough for 2 horses to pass side by side .. let alone a car.

posted by : I know, 25 February 2010 Complain about this comment
Must be some new definition of the word Shun

Not make compulsory = shun? I think not.

Given that most people have a mobile phone and that can be located by GPS or cell triangulation this system would only be an advantage for crashes in remote areas where the occupants are rendered unconscious or don't have a mobile. What small fraction of accidents does that cover, and at what cost to car manufacturers?

You can always make transport systems safer, at costs that outweigh the benefits. This looks like such an example.

posted by : Steve T, 25 February 2010 Complain about this comment
@Steve

"Oh, and we're the safest drivers in Europe - but for someone reason require the most speed cameras. Discuss."

Maybe we are the safest drivers in Europe *because* we have the most speed cameras? Then again, correlation does not equate to causation, so it probably means nothing at all.

posted by : Ocular Sinister, 25 February 2010 Complain about this comment
Well of course...

It's pointless in the UK as within the next few years all cars will be tracked via GPS road charging anyway... By the time our overlords are finished the magic black box will be reporting back every time we break wind and a fine for air pollution will be waiting on the door mat before we even get home.

Oh, and we're the safest drivers in Europe - but for someone reason require the most speed cameras. Discuss.

posted by : Steve, 25 February 2010 Complain about this comment
aboutus
Advertisement
Subscribe to INQ newsletters
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Facebook starts selling shares

Will you buy Facebook shares?