> The department usually calls the number to check the situation when it receives an automated alert but there is no follow-up from the smartphone’s user. If the user does not answer, the department calls again sometime later
This doesn’t make any sense to me. The user has been in an (assumed) crash where they are presumably unable to call 119 themselves, but the fire department tries calling back to see if it was an actual emergency?
Then if nobody answers, instead of rushing over there, they try again in a little while?
I think it is safe to assume that the "don't rush over there" behavior is a learned one. After rushing over many times for what appears to be a false alarm, you start to think more of the calls are false alarms.
There is even a parable about this. Several of them, actually. :D
If they are resource constrained then this just seems like a form of triaging where non-automated calls are prioritized. I don't see the problem with this approach if they are seeing a lot of false positives from automated sources.
Tangential, but I was looking into a monitored alarm system recently for my home. For £50/month, the alarm company will respond to an alarm and try to phone me. If they cannot get through to me, or I confirm I'm not home, they will dispatch a guard to arrive within 30 minutes. They will assess whether or not there is someone there and will call the police if there is, wait until they arrive, and charge £70 per callout with some standing charge for however long they wait for the police too.
Needless to say I went with a Ring alarm, which is £8/month, and will notify me immediately, and I can call the police myself.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. The user has been in an (assumed) crash where they are presumably unable to call 119 themselves, but the fire department tries calling back to see if it was an actual emergency?
Then if nobody answers, instead of rushing over there, they try again in a little while?