"Accessible" vs "Disabled" Toilets

[Woodchopper]

Why do I think it isn't fine - to use them just because they are "convenient"??? Because it means people with disabilities who need these facilities and cannot use the others have to face delays which may cause them significant difficulties.

I might not be disabled, but I often really really need to go to loo in a hurry, like many people of middle and older age, due to the effect of various conditions many of us get in later life. In extremis, I will use the ladies' loo, if it is a single person loo.

Based upon what you write, you may well have a disability, assuming that its a long term condition which appears to reduce your ability to carry out everyday activities.

[Tessa K]

At Kings X the other day there was an attendant letting people with kids in the accessible toilets if no one else wanted them, which seemed sensible. Not many places do that though.

I have on occasion gone in the Gents, which gets odd looks but the queues are always much shorter.

[IvanV]

Why do I think it isn't fine - to use them just because they are "convenient"??? Because it means people with disabilities who need these facilities and cannot use the others have to face delays which may cause them significant difficulties.

I might not be disabled, but I often really really need to go to loo in a hurry, like many people of middle and older age, due to the effect of various conditions many of us get in later life. In extremis, I will use the ladies' loo, if it is a single person loo.

Based upon what you write, you may well have a disability, assuming that its a long term condition which appears to reduce your ability to carry out everyday activities.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that common conditions like BPH and the menopause are disabilities. But I'll play any card that gets me into a loo when I really really need it.

[Woodchopper]

I might not be disabled, but I often really really need to go to loo in a hurry, like many people of middle and older age, due to the effect of various conditions many of us get in later life. In extremis, I will use the ladies' loo, if it is a single person loo.

Based upon what you write, you may well have a disability, assuming that its a long term condition which appears to reduce your ability to carry out everyday activities.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that common conditions like BPH and the menopause are disabilities. But I'll play any card that gets me into a loo when I really really need it.

It comes down to whether it has a substantial effect upon your life. I know other people with BPH for whom it definitely does. Just because a condition is relatively common and a consequence of getting older doesn't mean that it doesn't result in a disability.

[EACLucifer]

And why shouldn't the disabled have to wait to use the loo just once in a while like the rest of us, if one should happen to turn up just as I am in there?

Because life is already a great deal more difficult for us and it is for you. Because we are more likely to be pushed to our limit just to get out of the house at all.

Anybody who thinks it is the same for disabled people as "the rest of us" is too ignorant to be entitled to an opinion on the matter.

[IvanV]

It comes down to whether it has a substantial effect upon your life. I know other people with BPH for whom it definitely does. Just because a condition is relatively common and a consequence of getting older doesn't mean that it doesn't result in a disability.

That was the substance of the issue when I managed to get to talk to my GP after 2 years, rather than the 6 months they said would happen when first prescribing me a minimum dose of something, which they said was one of a number of alternatives that did different things, and they could prescribe in different quantities. I was there because things were worse than when initially prescribed. To me the key question is, what level of improvement is feasible. I got agreement that was indeed the key question, but only a laugh was available in terms of an answer. It seems to me that if the GP made an informed choice in initially giving me that prescription, and they had alternatives, they were capable of reviewing that prescription. But that would involve thought, and doubtless further work in subsequent reviews. So the new technique of GPs these days is to kick that into the long grass of a consultants' appointment, which on current trends I shall expect to wait a lot longer than the 7 months I have already been waiting.

[IvanV]

And why shouldn't the disabled have to wait to use the loo just once in a while like the rest of us, if one should happen to turn up just as I am in there?

Because life is already a great deal more difficult for us and it is for you. Because we are more likely to be pushed to our limit just to get out of the house at all.

Anybody who thinks it is the same for disabled people as "the rest of us" is too ignorant to be entitled to an opinion on the matter.

Ideally all loos will be accessible. Then there'd be no argument. We'd all use them equally. Perhaps you don't want that because then you'd lose any claim of priority?

So in the interim meantime, when we have reached the situation that a high fraction of loos are accessible, and there are fewer public loos, what do we conclude about who can use these loos? There just aren't enough unless we extend who uses the accessible loos. I think you have to trust people to be sensible about it and give priority when it is due. I try to do that, and I think most people do.

[bolo]

When I was in the UK a couple of months ago, I was struck by the number of toilets I encountered that were out of order. Is that normal these days, or was I just unlucky? It seems that keeping existing toilets operational is a pretty basic prerequisite, whatever the rules are about who's allowed to use which.

[jimbob]

My point is that just as you can’t assume adults with no visible disabilities are using an accessible toilet just because it’s convenient, you shouldn’t assume a parent and kids are using one just because it’s convenient.

I'm not assuming that. When I started this thread it was not based on observations of who is using them - and making assumptions about those people.

It was based on reading many posts on various discussion forums saying that people felt that because they are labelled "accessible" not "disabled" this means anyone can use them whenever they feel like it - whether or not they have a disability.

I believe the term "accessible", while technically correct, is creating confusion and leading to excessive use by people without disabilities.

Yes, but disability is not the only genuine reason to use an accessible toilet. Child safety is a big one.

Exactly.

20 years ago, when I had kids who needed nappies changing, sometimes I would have to go into the ladies with them. I always was conscious of the problems that could cause, but the women who saw me there understood why.

It was pretty rare even then for me to not have facilities for a man to change nappies, but it did happen.

As an aside, a couple of weeks ago I was at the Brierlow Bar bookstore and tea shop outside Buxton and was impressed by the family toilet facilities (the doors defaulted to open) as well as the other ones.

[Woodchopper]

My point is that just as you can’t assume adults with no visible disabilities are using an accessible toilet just because it’s convenient, you shouldn’t assume a parent and kids are using one just because it’s convenient.
If you have more than one small child you might well need that space to keep your children safe, even in the absence of any disabilities. There are any number of issues that could be in play.

This^^^^

When my two were smaller I'd often use the disabled toilet when out with them both because getting an adult and one child into a standard cubicle was difficult enough let alone 2, and I sure as hell wasn't leaving my ASD 5 year old, or my fearless, trust everyone, 3 year old standing alone outside while I took the other one in.

I absolutely understand that people with a range of disabilities need to use the accessible toilets and I'd never use them when not wrangling two small children, but until there are seperate facilities that meet the needs of families I don't think they should be excluded from accessible toilets.

It seems to me that you were the carer for a disabled child. ASD definitely could be a disability and it would seem to cross the threshold if you can’t safely leave them unattended for a few minutes.

[jimbob]

My point is that just as you can’t assume adults with no visible disabilities are using an accessible toilet just because it’s convenient, you shouldn’t assume a parent and kids are using one just because it’s convenient.
If you have more than one small child you might well need that space to keep your children safe, even in the absence of any disabilities. There are any number of issues that could be in play.

This^^^^

When my two were smaller I'd often use the disabled toilet when out with them both because getting an adult and one child into a standard cubicle was difficult enough let alone 2, and I sure as hell wasn't leaving my ASD 5 year old, or my fearless, trust everyone, 3 year old standing alone outside while I took the other one in.

I absolutely understand that people with a range of disabilities need to use the accessible toilets and I'd never use them when not wrangling two small children, but until there are seperate facilities that meet the needs of families I don't think they should be excluded from accessible toilets.

It seems to me that you were the carer for a disabled child. ASD definitely could be a disability and it would seem to cross the threshold if you can’t safely leave them unattended for a few minutes.

ASD might raise the age limit, but a 3yr old and a 5yr old, or even someone with just a 3 yr old who needs to use the toilet themselves often couldn't safely leave their kid outside

[bob sterman]

Why do I think it isn't fine - to use them just because they are "convenient"??? Because it means people with disabilities who need these facilities and cannot use the others have to face delays which may cause them significant difficulties.

I think that is rarely the case. It's a toilet. It just happens to be accessible, if that is valuable to you. If there is a risk of disabled people queuing to use the only loo, I would strain to go to the other one. Maybe there are locations where that happens, due to the particular local population of users, but so far I have never been in that situation.

And why shouldn't the disabled have to wait to use the loo just once in a while like the rest of us, if one should happen to turn up just as I am in there?

Because for many people with certain disabilities - waiting is much more of a problem than it is for "the rest of us".

Have you had the experience of trying to get a doubly incontinent adult with dementia into a toilet on a shopping trip? Before everything oozes out of their pads and soaks through their clothes? Or similar with a child with a learning disability who needs to get changed before they reach into their pants and start chucking poop around. Or just run off? Or been someone with a catheter bag or stoma bag that is full/leaking/disconnected and needs to be sorted rapidly?

Yes it's not nice for kids without disabilities to sit around in soiled nappies for longer than necessary. But for people immobile due to disability - sitting in soiled continence products can rapidly lead to skin breakdown and open wounds. Or maybe they've already got open wounds and you want to get them on the toilet before they defecate to avoid soaking them again.

Also there are good reasons to minimize the use of these facilities - to ensure they remain in service for the people who really need them...

http://www.disabledpolice.info/accessib ... or-misuse/

Where accessible toilets are generally used because of ease of use rather than necessity, facilities can often became unusable or placed out of action due to lack of care in hygiene, lack of consideration (people not leaving the facility in a clean state), carelessness or misuse (blocked toilets). This could mean that no other facility is available for use, or overused so often by the general workforce that a person who needs to use them are unable to due to over-occupancy. This can also mean that these toilets are less safe for someone with mobility issues: they may be unable to change due to fear of slipping, have nowhere to place items to change, or be unable to administer medication or change a stoma dressing.

Lack of availability can be critical for colleagues that need to use facilities because of mobility and dexterity issues, irritable bowel disease, syndromes such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, coeliac disease, fibromyalgia, and many other conditions requiring them to be located near to an accessible toilet.

[IvanV]

Because for many people with certain disabilities - waiting is much more of a problem than it is for "the rest of us".

Have you had the experience of trying to get a doubly incontinent adult with dementia into a toilet on a shopping trip? Before everything oozes out of their pads and soaks through their clothes? Or similar with a child with a learning disability who needs to get changed before they reach into their pants and start chucking poop around. Or just run off? Or been someone with a catheter bag or stoma bag that is full/leaking/disconnected and needs to be sorted rapidly?

Yes it's not nice for kids without disabilities to sit around in soiled nappies for longer than necessary. But for people immobile due to disability - sitting in soiled continence products can rapidly lead to skin breakdown and open wounds. Or maybe they've already got open wounds and you want to get them on the toilet before they defecate to avoid soaking them again.

Also there are good reasons to minimize the use of these facilities - to ensure they remain in service for the people who really need them...

http://www.disabledpolice.info/accessib ... or-misuse/

These are very good points, Bob, and I am grateful to you for bringing them forward. And they will make me more careful in relation to those accessible toilets where those scenarios are at all plausible.

Meanwhile, I shall most definitely continue to use the accessible toilet where it is evident that it is a toilet provided for whoever the people are there present, such as on a train where it is the only toilet. You cannot deny me that.

[Sciolus]

It's very location-dependent. A large supermarket should have enough room for a dedicated disabled toilet, baby-changing space and general-use toilets. A cafe with ten tables may only have room for a single, rather cramped WC. But the rule should be, use your own facilities if possible and avoid punching down.

And we need more publicly-available toilets.

[TopBadger]

And we need more publicly-available toilets.

This - that the main concern seems to be over potential denied usage to others means there simply aren't enough. I expect the blame can be laid at local council cuts, and in turn, government for not funding local councils sufficiently.

[Grumble]

And we need more publicly-available toilets.

This - that the main concern seems to be over potential denied usage to others means there simply aren't enough. I expect the blame can be laid at local council cuts, and in turn, government for not funding local councils sufficiently.

The provision of decent toilets in places like the Trafford Centre is a big factor when it comes to deciding where to shop

[Fishnut]

And we need more publicly-available toilets.

This - that the main concern seems to be over potential denied usage to others means there simply aren't enough. I expect the blame can be laid at local council cuts, and in turn, government for not funding local councils sufficiently.

Funding really is the key issue. Plus the fact there's no legal requirement to provide public toilets,

...while the Public Health Act 1936 gives local authorities a power to provide public toilets, it imposes no duty to do so, and this lack of compulsion, together with a perception of nuisance associated with them, has arguably resulted in a steady decline in the provision of public toilets in recent years...

That quote is from a government report [PDF] from 2008 looking at public toilet provision. It states,

Some [local authorities] have opted for a scheme where the local authority works in partnership with local businesses (such as pubs, cafes and shops) that make their own toilets available to non-customers.

Other local authorities are less committed to the maintenance or provision of public toilets, which has led to great disparities between different towns and regions. It has been argued that some local authorities have used the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as an excuse to close public toilets, rather than bring them up to the standards required by the Act. [p3]

It goes on to note that the government doesn't even know the scale of the losses,

There is a lack of reliable data about the numbers of public toilets still in operation. According to Government figures there is a consistent downward trend: “over many years a significant number of public toilets have closed or been allowed to deteriorate”.2 No precise figures exist; the Audit Commission published an annual review of the level of public toilet provision until 2000, but no longer does so.

A researcher and blogger collated publicly available data between 2000 and 2016 and found a 28% reduction in public toilets in England and Wales.

The government report goes through the costs for various types of public toilet provisioning, and they are substantial.

According to Healthmatic—a company that designs, supplies and maintains public toilets in the United Kingdom and Ireland—automatic toilets (known as APCs or APTs) “cost typically £70k plus connections to the services and then a maintenance cost of up to £15k per annum”. The cost for a stand-alone semi-automatic toilet, where access is automatically controlled within set times, is around £45,000 plus connection to services. The cheapest option is the traditional public toilet block: a standard block with four women’s cubicles, one man’s cubicle plus urinals and a cubicle compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act would cost around £140,000 plus connections to services. The costs of bringing services to the toilets can cost as much as £30,000, depending on their proximity to the sewerage system and to water and electricity supplies. [page 11]
...
The ongoing costs of maintaining public toilets vary, depending on the type of public toilet, whether it is attended and level of use. Healthmatic states: “Average cleaning is around £8-10k per loo, £1000 on consumables, £1,000 on NDR [non-domestic rates] and capital charges, building repairs, and other costs will vary.” Older facilities need to be updated, to comply with health and safety, and disability legislation. The BTA quotes the figure of £25,000 to £40,000 per year for the cost of maintaining an attended facility. To provide attendants for a public toilet open ten hours a day, seven days a week would require three staff at a salary cost of around £29,000, according to Healthmatics. [p11-12]

The report discusses the impact of charging for access. Benefits to charging are that they may dis-incentivise antisocial behaviour and provide a revenue stream to off-set the costs of running the facilities. Drawbacks are that people may not have the change required to access the facilities (an increasing problem in our evermore cashless society) and thus limit the use of the facilities and the income generated.

The Campaign for Public Infrastructure reports that local authorities have halved their expenditure on public toilets since 2010.

One partial solution that is being used by local authorities is the Community Toilet Scheme, where private businesses allow their toilets to be accessed by anyone, not just customers, and either get money from the local authority or are allowed to charge for use.

There are obvious benefits with this scheme for the local authorities - they are no longer responsible for the provisioning of these facilities or the majority of the costs. But there are many downsides - access is only available during business hours, they aren't suitable when large numbers of people want access at the same time, access is at the discretion of the business owner - they can refuse to let you use the facilities if they wish, and the person requiring the facilities needs to feel comfortable entering the establishment and asking where the toilets are if not clear and not everyone is, particularly when the facilities are in clubs, pubs and bars. Plus when only some businesses are signed up it can be confusing to people to know whether or not facilities are available to them.

The Royal Society for Public Heath published a report [PDF] in 2019 that found that people wanted more public toilets but didn't want to pay for them,

Despite the consensus about need, few want to pay for them from their own pockets. For example, 85% agreed that councils (LAs) should have “a legal responsibility to provide public toilets which are free to use for the public”, but only 34% agreed that this should be via raising council tax. Such a proposal would also be unworkable without significant changes to the funding environment, following years of central government cuts to local authority budgets. Between 2010 and 2020, councils will have lost almost 60p out of every £1 the Government had provided for services [LGA, 2019]. Unsurprisingly, the least popular option for funding public toilets was by entry fees (30%), but none of the offered options proved universally popular, with the exception of advertising in toilets (78%).

Business or charity sponsorship (62%), a generous benefactor (60%) and state funding in tourist areas (67%) were favoured. While benefactors do occasionally come forward, for instance for the toilets in Bridport, Dorset, funded by a local business woman, this is not a sustainable funding model at scale. Nevertheless, given the shortage of national or LA funds for these ‘necessaries’, it may be possible to offer tax breaks or gift aiding schemes to encourage both companies and individuals to sponsor local public toilets schemes.

The idea of taking a penny from the price of a bus, train or tube ticket was favoured by 45% of the public, while a tax on cafés and bars had the support of just over half (51%). State funding of toilets in tourist areas is not a new idea and local funding of this type is used in other countries, such as the USA. [p12]

The government in 2007/08 didn't want to change the law as far as public toilet provisioning was concerned.

However, the Government does not want to impose any duty to provide public toilets, nor even any duty on local authorities to provide a strategy about the provision of public toilets. As the Minister told us: “what we have done over the past ten years is increasingly to leave local authorities to determine the way they do things and run things, and that has been the direction of travel.”161 Instead, the Government hopes that each local authority will see for itself the benefits and “recognises the value of public toilets, stimulates local debate and responds to community concerns, galvanises other service providers to take action, and builds links with local businesses and communities.”

But many local authorities have not seen the benefits of public toilets, as can be seen by the decline in the numbers and standards of public toilets, which is why many organisations that submitted evidence sought a statutory duty on local authorities to provide public toilets... [p36] [source]

This devolution to local authorities has only increased in the years since this report's publication, and provisioning of public toilets has only got worse. The Campaign for Public Infrastructure have a campaign to improve access to public toilets. As part of the campaign they have recommendations on how local authorities can access funding to improve provisioning.

As the 2008 government report shows, loss of access to public toilets has been a longstanding concern. I mentioned it in a different context a couple of years ago. The problem is we have had successive governments who have failed to see that public infrastructure benefits the economy. They see the cost of providing public toilets but not the income generated from them, because the costs are centralised and the income is diffuse. Shopping centres don't provide toilets because they are doing so out of the kindness of their hearts - they do so because they know it means that people will stay longer and spend more money. Providing facilities so that people can leave their homes has innumerable benefits that lead to savings for local authorities but until budgets are able to reflect that I don't see the situation improving unfortunately.

[Tessa K]

It's not just accessibility that's an issue, it's also cleanliness. Some people are vile.

I know the toilets in too many pubs are likely to be hell pits, I can pee hovering over the seat, a lot of people can't. But many public toilets are rarely cleaned or restocked with paper so even if you can find one you may not want to use it (if you have a choice).

[Fishnut]

It's not just accessibility that's an issue, it's also cleanliness. Some people are vile.

I know the toilets in too many pubs are likely to be hell pits, I can pee hovering over the seat, a lot of people can't. But many public toilets are rarely cleaned or restocked with paper so even if you can find one you may not want to use it (if you have a choice).

The Royal Society for Public Heath report that I mentioned looked into reasons why people don't use public toilets and cleanliness and lack of toilet paper were both significant reasons, and affected women far more than men.

Screenshot 2023-11-08 at 14.44.13.png (110.24 KiB) Viewed 7241 times

Data is from a survey conducted in September 2018 on behalf of the RSPH by Populus. It included 2,089 UK adults aged 18 or over, with a standardised data base to represent factors such as income, gender, age and region.

[Martin_B]

In recent years there's been a move to change signage from "Disabled Toilet" to "Accessible Toilet" for a range of potentially laudable reasons. This has often been accompanied by a change from the traditional wheelchair symbol - as of course many forms of disability are either hidden or don't involve using a wheelchair.

What symbol? A quick image search only shows wheelchairs as a symbol, whatever the accompanying text. I'm not sure how you would devise a visual symbol for a hidden disability...

Was recently in France and their accessible toilets sometimes show someone on crutches, or even just the crutches themselves. The examples below aren't quite the French ones, but are close.

MFAT_s_large.jpg (58.91 KiB) Viewed 7181 times

images.jpg (16.91 KiB) Viewed 7181 times

[Martin Y]

Aside: At first glance those crossed crutches look like syringes. I'd assume it was something to do with safe disposal unless I stopped and actually read it and worked it out. The symbols above with stick figures using crutches are a lot clearer.

[bolo]

A new bar/restaurant that just opened near us has two bathrooms, both labeled "Humans" and both accessible. This seems like the way to go, though obviously it may sometimes be hard to do as a retrofit.

And the restaurant instead at last night had three bathrooms, labeled "His", "Hers", and "Theirs", which also seemed like a good approach, if space permits. I tried "Theirs", which was accessible. I presume the others were also, but I didn't check.

[Trinucleus]

A new bar/restaurant that just opened near us has two bathrooms, both labeled "Humans" and both accessible. This seems like the way to go, though obviously it may sometimes be hard to do as a retrofit.

And the restaurant instead at last night had three bathrooms, labeled "His", "Hers", and "Theirs", which also seemed like a good approach, if space permits. I tried "Theirs", which was accessible. I presume the others were also, but I didn't check.

I love it when businesses just get on with the stuff where politicians tie themselves in knots.

In the run up to my gay son's wedding, I phoned the venue and struggled to find the right words to say that both partners had sorted something. " No problem sir, the grooms gave already agreed" said the receptionist without missing a beat