How eCall made a difference to road safety in Europe

Having been a UK Road Policing Officer instilled me with a passion to reduce road casualties. I have walked down too many pathways to knock on the door of a house to deliver sad messages of deaths that change lives.   These experiences will stay with me forever, and they are as vivid now as the original day.

But I was given a unique opportunity to make a difference to casualty reduction on roads of Europe, and now well beyond.

eCall is an in-vehicle technology that automatically contacts the emergency services in the event of an accident upon airbag deployment. This information can also be triggered manually where a driver witnesses an incident and needs to summon help. The information is contained in a burst of data, coupled with a voice connection.

eCall was designed by the emergency services, for the emergency services. The concept was to provide the responder with information needed to make an efficient and effective rescue, e.g., exact location, vehicle type, fuel, number of passengers. The critical part to an emergency response is knowing the precise location, eCall provides this whether the vehicle occupants can speak or are aware of where they are.

The information is provided even if the vehicle occupants cannot make the call themselves, or the call can be made on behalf of another road user. The difference that eCall makes is 40% time-saving in city areas and 50% saving in response time – in rural areas.

eCall in Europe has demonstrated to me that there are strategic decisions, processes and specifications that could be changed to make eCall more effective elsewhere. This is not a criticism of eCall in Europe, on the contrary, Europe has led the way.  But the opportunity is to make improvements in:

The major stakeholders for eCall are vehicle manufacturers, Mobile Network Providers, and Public Safety Answering Points (000). For eCall to be deployed in a realistic timescale, all stakeholders must be held to firm commitments. Promises are ineffective – clear timescales are required for a cohesive deployment.

In Europe, deployment has been a significant undertaking, but delays were encountered because of the status accorded to private eCall vs. public eCall. Private eCall is a subscription service, public eCall is free at the point of use for all. The emphasis was placed on public eCall, whilst private eCall was placed to one side. But all eCall is relevant, both achieve the same outcome, so a dual approach should have been followed. Imposing mandated eCall on vehicle makers caused additional cost but no tangible return.

Connected car technology is moving at a very fast pace, and eCall will be absorbed into this with its own challenges, but should be embraced.

Europe chose and mandated 2G/3G cellular network technologies in type approval regulations. eCall in Europe cannot evolve until the regulations are amended. Australia can move directly to 4G and beyond, thereby gaining the advantages of new communication options.

In summary, Europe has led the way with deployment and mandating of eCall. My experience in supervising its deployment has shown that partnerships and firm commitments are key, promises to participate are insufficient. Australia can benefit from three years of active deployment of eCall in Europe by learning the lessons and experiences of eCall deployment in Europe, and improving the process and technology available.

eCall does make a difference to road safety, if it prevents one member of the emergency services having to tell a family the harsh news that their loved one will not be coming home, it must be worth it for me.