Japan skiers’ smartphones making unnecessary emergency calls(japannews.yomiuri.co.jp)
japannews.yomiuri.co.jp
Japan skiers’ smartphones making unnecessary emergency calls
https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/general-news/20230129-87465/
96 comments
How hard did you toss the phone exactly? :D
It should know better by seeing that the car is still traveling
You can fall in a vehicle that’s still travelling. It just has to be able to occupy the fall, so to speak
I don't think it's meant to call 911 whenever somebody trips, on a bus or otherwise. It's supposed to detect car crashes, not somebody stumbling on a bus.
The main reason I am getting my elderly mother one is for fall detection. It is not just meant for cad accidents.
Maybe I was indoctrinated by early 90s TV ads, but don't you want that "I've fallen and I can't get up!" thing? Seems more reliable.
Sometimes people can't push a button to save themselves; and, a lot of elderly people, or even older-but-not-elderly people don't want to show themselves either to others or themselves that they need protection like this.
My mom had fall protection on her Apple Watch, for example, because she lived alone and was getting weaker.
My mom had fall protection on her Apple Watch, for example, because she lived alone and was getting weaker.
It's unclear to me why the Apple Watch is better here. It needs to be charged daily, so people are certainly taking it off. Anything that you take off might not be on when you have an accident. Maybe I'm a weirdo, but if I'm sitting along in my house, I don't have my watch or phone on me. They are both useless to report that I've fallen and I can't get up.
Apple Watch is jewelry vs an obviously-ADA-focused device.
Some people have pride in their appearance and in their independence and don't want to think of themselves as needing such a device. It's not that the Apple Watch is better than the "I've fallen and I can't get up" device, it's that it's better than nothing, which is what they would have in the other case.
Some people have pride in their appearance and in their independence and don't want to think of themselves as needing such a device. It's not that the Apple Watch is better than the "I've fallen and I can't get up" device, it's that it's better than nothing, which is what they would have in the other case.
no monthly fee for the apple watch, it is also an apple watch, so it can find her phone for her as well and vibrate her wrist when she gets a call or text (she has poor hearing). It can also monitor her heart for issues. To be honest, I think these devices need to be subsidized for the elderly.
Those things have one pretty serious drawback: falls tend to happen while the person isn't wearing it. Of course, this might not be any different for smart watches and such.
What's the state of the art with "Hey Siri, I've fallen and I can't get up"? That sounds like something that, if coded, is always there for you if you need help. I suppose there could be some sort of gas release that renders you unable to speak, but on the other hand, that seems rare. If you fall down the stairs, that sounds like it would work, and you don't need to remember to wear anything.
Make one of those beepers waterproof and hang it off the bottom of their shower curtain.
Right but it can detect a fall followed by no motion at all (not the case in a moving car) followed by a warning alarm (Android supports this) and then call 999.
I've recommended NOT getting an Apple Watch/Phone for precisely this use-case.
If you don't have great manual dexterity, your fingers are wet/dirty/whatever, then using a touch-screen is terrible and frustrating.
Physical buttons, particularly ones that don't rely on manual dexterity, are a much better approach.
Yes, it can (potentially) detect falls, but if it doesn't, and you need to manually activate it then you could find yourself stuck.
If you don't have great manual dexterity, your fingers are wet/dirty/whatever, then using a touch-screen is terrible and frustrating.
Physical buttons, particularly ones that don't rely on manual dexterity, are a much better approach.
Yes, it can (potentially) detect falls, but if it doesn't, and you need to manually activate it then you could find yourself stuck.
Not sure I follow, you can manually call sos on the Apple Watch by holding down the side button (and keeping it held down). If it detects a fall and you don't respond within a set amount of time, it will call emergency services.
The automatic fall detect is the cherry on top, I don't think it gets any easier than pressing a (very light) button for not much time. And if your hands are fucked as well, you can tell Siri to call 911
If you can't speak, can't access the button, can't swipe, and it didn't detect the fall, then I don't think any piece of tech is going to help. You are fucked
The automatic fall detect is the cherry on top, I don't think it gets any easier than pressing a (very light) button for not much time. And if your hands are fucked as well, you can tell Siri to call 911
If you can't speak, can't access the button, can't swipe, and it didn't detect the fall, then I don't think any piece of tech is going to help. You are fucked
The heuristics would need to be dramatically different for those use cases though
> The Gujo City Fire Department in Gifu Prefecture, which has many ski resorts within its jurisdiction, received 351 emergency calls between Jan. 1 and Jan. 23. Nearly 40% — 135 calls — were made erroneously.
I wonder how many of the 351 emergency calls and how many of the 135 erroneous calls were made by a phone's automatic crash detection system. It's obviously not great that the automatic system is placing so many erroneous calls, but it may be worth the burden on Japan's (or any other country's) emergency services if such calls aren't an overwhelming majority.
I wonder how many of the 351 emergency calls and how many of the 135 erroneous calls were made by a phone's automatic crash detection system. It's obviously not great that the automatic system is placing so many erroneous calls, but it may be worth the burden on Japan's (or any other country's) emergency services if such calls aren't an overwhelming majority.
But if 99% of the automatic calls are false, the feature won't work. Because the 1% that is a proper automatic call, will be ignored and assumed false as well.
Anyone who's been skiing with an actual fitness watch over the last 5+ years knows this feature doesn't work even with devices that gather and understand more vitals than annual consumer iDevices. It's a shame the gadget geeks, techies, and Apple couldn't learn from others before going down this path.
Can I just take a minute to say how salty I am that the “hike” exercise doesn’t ask for how heavy a pack I’m carrying?
They estimate is that you add 2 seconds to your mile pace for every extra pound. You can’t tell me that doesn’t affect caloric intensity. I had a problem, last year that the heavier the pack the worse Apple would report my cardiac fitness. Yeah of course I’m shorter of breath today, I’m carrying 20 lbs!
I feel like this whole part of the ecosystem is just in maintenance mode. You can’t learn much when you stop doing.
They estimate is that you add 2 seconds to your mile pace for every extra pound. You can’t tell me that doesn’t affect caloric intensity. I had a problem, last year that the heavier the pack the worse Apple would report my cardiac fitness. Yeah of course I’m shorter of breath today, I’m carrying 20 lbs!
I feel like this whole part of the ecosystem is just in maintenance mode. You can’t learn much when you stop doing.
I’d assume they would need a new category called backpack. I suspect 99.9% of hikers using an Apple watch don’t have a backpack.
> I suspect 99.9% of hikers using an Apple watch don’t have a backpack.
I'm sorry, but what?
This is a wild claim to assert without any data whatsoever.
You think only one in one thousand people on a _hike_ are carrying a backpack?
I'm sorry, but what?
This is a wild claim to assert without any data whatsoever.
You think only one in one thousand people on a _hike_ are carrying a backpack?
I'd guess so too. But not so much from data, rather from my perception of what the "USA media"/"influence people" tend mean when saying hiking, which is something more like a long(er) walk, returning in a/few hours at most within the day. If I or someone from where I live (sweden) said they where headed for a hike, they would not be expected to return same day, but probably be out for a couple days, and carrying a backpack doing so.
USA is a big place, with a lot of wilderness. Sweden is the size of one of our mountain ranges. A lot of people spend a lot of time in that wilderness, but I suspect the issue is one of syntax. The term "backpacking" has taken on more of that spirit of the term "hiking" that you're referring to. You can still say you went on a multi-day hike out around some 14,000ft peak; but if you just say you're going hiking it could mean a lot of things, but if you're backpacking it assumes you're out camping for some of it.
Also some of those "influencers" (noting social media doesn't reflect reality) probably live in areas of the country where they have vast wilderness a very short drive away. A short day hike is worth it if you live in Colorado and can get to the trailhead in way under 2 hours. It's not worth it if you live in Boston and need 8 hours to get to anything _somewhat_ remote.
Also some of those "influencers" (noting social media doesn't reflect reality) probably live in areas of the country where they have vast wilderness a very short drive away. A short day hike is worth it if you live in Colorado and can get to the trailhead in way under 2 hours. It's not worth it if you live in Boston and need 8 hours to get to anything _somewhat_ remote.
> I'm sorry, but what?
I think they meant - a backpack carrying 10-20 lbs. Sure, most hikers carry a backpack but all it has is maybe a jacket, water and some protein bars.
I think they meant - a backpack carrying 10-20 lbs. Sure, most hikers carry a backpack but all it has is maybe a jacket, water and some protein bars.
If you include “walk in the arboretum” under “hiking” it makes some sense.
[deleted]
Like almost all things Apple Watch, I'm pretty sure they estimate calorie usage by heartrate
I’ll have to do some experiments to see if that’s true.
I have to wear my smartwatch backward and upside down because it kept sending random emojis to my partner when I was doing yard work. Drove her nuts. Either flexion or just the glove would push the button, causing it to take input. If the last thing I looked at was messages from her, then she’d get responses out of some cheesy horror movie.
I haven’t tried again with my latest model. I would have thought the lock would prevent such things, but it didn’t, and I am starting to forget the repro steps.
I haven’t tried again with my latest model. I would have thought the lock would prevent such things, but it didn’t, and I am starting to forget the repro steps.
We should remember to evaluate interventions based on the cost and rate of false positive/negatives, vs. the benefit of true positive/negatives.
In this case, the pertinent benefit to weigh against is the benefit of fall detection, particularly for elderly people, but also for active folks e.g. falling while cycling.
Obviously we’d rather not make false emergency calls, all else being equal. But it could be worth it on its face, we need to analyze the benefits to know.
In this case, the pertinent benefit to weigh against is the benefit of fall detection, particularly for elderly people, but also for active folks e.g. falling while cycling.
Obviously we’d rather not make false emergency calls, all else being equal. But it could be worth it on its face, we need to analyze the benefits to know.
Shouldn't people who want this have a specific device or service that handles the logistics of rescue, like Onstar?
From the looks of it, Apple gets to market this feature but shoves the work off to public rescue services, which are then burdened by false positives due to Apple unilaterally letting their phones dial emergency numbers and putting the onus on the user to handle 'impact classification'.
From the looks of it, Apple gets to market this feature but shoves the work off to public rescue services, which are then burdened by false positives due to Apple unilaterally letting their phones dial emergency numbers and putting the onus on the user to handle 'impact classification'.
I don’t think so, no. By this logic, all roads would be toll roads, all schools would be private, etc. I would not like to live in that society. If Android or other device manufacturers had equivalent features, they can have that too. We can discuss what the maximum false positive rate can legally be obliged to be, but I think having it be 0% is not a net positive for society.
The best camera is the one that's with you.
And also the best heart rate monitor and fall detector is the one you're always carrying (smartwatch). Same with this feature on the phone.
Of course people won't buy a specific "call the authorities when I get in a crash" -device and carry it with them.
And also the best heart rate monitor and fall detector is the one you're always carrying (smartwatch). Same with this feature on the phone.
Of course people won't buy a specific "call the authorities when I get in a crash" -device and carry it with them.
[deleted]
Flooding emergency services with fake incidents can easily start killing people due to help being called just because some idiot manager thought 'this is good marketing so lets get this done quickly' and pushed half-baked solution. I ain't talking about theory, read this thread about feature disabled and still calling 911, imagine if you had phone in trunk of the car.
Glad it doesn't seem to be enabled in Switzerland, my wife is a doctor, worked on emergency and also as a doctor with ambulances so has perspective from other side. This is outright criminal behavior from Apple, easily to get sued for billions in each bigger market (not saying they would automatically lose, they can play well meaning idiot at the courts but PR effect is nevertheless properly bad).
Glad it doesn't seem to be enabled in Switzerland, my wife is a doctor, worked on emergency and also as a doctor with ambulances so has perspective from other side. This is outright criminal behavior from Apple, easily to get sued for billions in each bigger market (not saying they would automatically lose, they can play well meaning idiot at the courts but PR effect is nevertheless properly bad).
Right, but just to be clear, that is the sort of “cost of false positive” that I was talking about considering.
Tell that to Cruise and Waymo:
https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...
They silence factual information which could be critical of their performance in San Francisco.
And they appear to cause real harm, according to the PDF interfering with firefighting, and disrupting public transit.
https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...
They silence factual information which could be critical of their performance in San Francisco.
And they appear to cause real harm, according to the PDF interfering with firefighting, and disrupting public transit.
I stopped wearing my Apple Watch while surfing because this feature would trigger almost every time. It’s made worse by the fact that the touch screen is inoperable when the phone senses that it’s wet, so it’s difficult to cancel.
Why didn't you just disable the feature? In the Apple Watch app on your iPhone, tap "Emergency SOS" and then turn off "Severe Crash" and/or "Fall Detection".
Why would it be enabled by default? That's crazy.
Hardly anyone looks in the settings. If it was off by default it would be pointless.
(I believe in current versions, it asks you during initial setup whether you would like it activated or not.)
(I believe in current versions, it asks you during initial setup whether you would like it activated or not.)
This isn't a disaster if you've got your AirPods in, you just explain everything is OK. Just put on your Rosegold Apple AR, you'll see.
I’m a firefighter/paramedic in a suburban town. We average one of these a month (false automated reports of vehicle crashes). I’ve never see a true positive report.
US ski patroller here, this is happening via Apple Watches here too. Not nearly as many as in the article, though. Couple times per month per resort.
I had this happen to me in an unexpected way as well. I parked my car on the side of the road, ran to my parents’ house, ran back to the car and jumped in. When I jumped in the car, the phone thought I had been in an accident and called emergency services. Luckily I think I was able to cancel it in time.
Seems like an edge case that Apple can solve by comparing phone behavior on a ski lift vs that of a car. There’s gotta be some patterns in the data that are distinctly skier behavior. However if they want to help those skiers that are truly in need of help, it gets much trickier.
It's probably not just the lifts. Anybody new to skis/snowboards is likely to do a lot of falling over.
(But if you're expecting to be frequently falling onto wet snow or hard ice, it's probably a good idea not to have a $1000 smartphone in your pocket...)
(But if you're expecting to be frequently falling onto wet snow or hard ice, it's probably a good idea not to have a $1000 smartphone in your pocket...)
Although the Apple Watch has the same feature.
Learning to ski is certainly a particularly strong example of a case where you're likely to have a lot of false positives.
But, honestly, even with something like hiking, tripping over a tree root or something like that isn't exactly rare. I've taken a ton of spills over the years and fortunately nothing worse than some minor bloodshed or maybe a twisted something was involved. (And the one time it was something more serious I didn't actually fall but did have a serious bone break.)
I've been on the fence whether I ought to enable the feature on my watch.
Learning to ski is certainly a particularly strong example of a case where you're likely to have a lot of false positives.
But, honestly, even with something like hiking, tripping over a tree root or something like that isn't exactly rare. I've taken a ton of spills over the years and fortunately nothing worse than some minor bloodshed or maybe a twisted something was involved. (And the one time it was something more serious I didn't actually fall but did have a serious bone break.)
I've been on the fence whether I ought to enable the feature on my watch.
It's not too difficult to solve actually. They could monitor for movement after the fall. If the person hasn't moved or has moved, but hasn't got up, then it should announce a warning (with enough time) before calling emergency services.
If they got up and have started walking again, its a false positive, or they don't need automatic help.
If they got up and have started walking again, its a false positive, or they don't need automatic help.
I guess that in the emergency case the phone will automatically determine the GPS position. For the fire departments it might make sense to discard the automated calls if the position is on a serviced skiing slope during the slopes operation times since there, in case of an anncident, in 99% of cases others are there for helping immediately. Also the emergency service would call the slopes emergency helpers anyway since they have the skidos ready for rescue on the slopes.
[deleted]
Exactly, this was first reported months ago and it should be easy to fix. Check location for ski slopes, see if they're moving normally again after 20-30 seconds, etc.
Maybe Apple is delaying the fix because these news stories are viral marketing for its crash detection feature?
Maybe Apple is delaying the fix because these news stories are viral marketing for its crash detection feature?
I got two of these alerts while snowboarding. I was able to catch them in time.
I am surprised this edge case exists - last time I set up an iPhone with Apple Watch I had to specifically enable the feature (it was for an elderly person so it made sense)
> 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?
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
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.
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.
It seems (from the comments) to be a "feature" of Apple devices.
In some countries calling emergency "for fun" can have legal consequences.
In some countries calling emergency "for fun" can have legal consequences.
softskunk(5)
This seems like a pretty easy thing to fix right, a quick GPS check to see if you’re anywhere near a road?
What if you're driving off the road ?
OK, so we need a toggle that says 'i never drive off road' which will cover like 99.9% of people.
also, if you do, you still don't drive off road on a snow covered mountain.
maps surely can help here.
also, if you do, you still don't drive off road on a snow covered mountain.
maps surely can help here.
I'm 99% sure she disabled that feature after that.