"Accessible" vs "Disabled" Toilets

[bob sterman]

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.

Technically, they were always "accessible toilets" rather than "disabled toilets" but they were commonly known by the latter name. However, it seems some people are starting to assume that the name "accessible" means they are just generally there for anyone who wants a little more space.

You can find comments all over parenting forums with people saying things like "it's fine to use it if you need space as you've got a kid and lots of shopping bags - as 'accessible' means it's not just for people with disabilities".

What should the name be to avoid this confusion?

[Martin Y]

Is it actually confusion, or is it intentional? Might the name change be meant to imply that, say, a parent with a couple of small children can use it? I've been out of the small children loop for some time but recall its being common to combine a larger disabled loo with a baby changing facility.

[bob sterman]

Is it actually confusion, or is it intentional? Might the name change be meant to imply that, say, a parent with a couple of small children can use it? I've been out of the small children loop for some time but recall its being common to combine a larger disabled loo with a baby changing facility.

It's mostly confusion - they were always "accessible" toilets - as this is what the relevant legislation stated that organisations needed to provide. But the new naming and signage is being applied to toilets that don't have baby change facilities and intended to be "accessible" for people with disabilities - not "accessible" for all.

[Woodchopper]

Is it actually confusion, or is it intentional? Might the name change be meant to imply that, say, a parent with a couple of small children can use it? I've been out of the small children loop for some time but recall its being common to combine a larger disabled loo with a baby changing facility.

I agree.

Back when my kids were small the nappy changing area was almost* always in the disabled/accessible toilet. If there wasn’t an official table that’s where you’d be directed by a member of staff. That was about a decade ago though.

*Very occasionally there would be a separate room or a dedicated table in the gents.

These days the more progressive places seem to encourage use of the disabled/accessible toilet by trans, non-binary or gender queer people.

[Tessa K]

Is it actually confusion, or is it intentional? Might the name change be meant to imply that, say, a parent with a couple of small children can use it? I've been out of the small children loop for some time but recall its being common to combine a larger disabled loo with a baby changing facility.

I agree.

Back when my kids were small the nappy changing area was almost* always in the disabled/accessible toilet. If there wasn’t an official table that’s where you’d be directed by a member of staff. That was about a decade ago though.

*Very occasionally there would be a separate room or a dedicated table in the gents.

These days the more progressive places seem to encourage use of the disabled/accessible toilet by trans, non-binary or gender queer people.

Or possibly people who don't want to use unisex toilets for whatever reason.

[Woodchopper]

Is it actually confusion, or is it intentional? Might the name change be meant to imply that, say, a parent with a couple of small children can use it? I've been out of the small children loop for some time but recall its being common to combine a larger disabled loo with a baby changing facility.

I agree.

Back when my kids were small the nappy changing area was almost* always in the disabled/accessible toilet. If there wasn’t an official table that’s where you’d be directed by a member of staff. That was about a decade ago though.

*Very occasionally there would be a separate room or a dedicated table in the gents.

These days the more progressive places seem to encourage use of the disabled/accessible toilet by trans, non-binary or gender queer people.

Or possibly people who don't want to use unisex toilets for whatever reason.

Yes, indeed.

[dyqik]

Over here, pretty much any multi-stall (or urinal plus one stall) single gender toilets have one stall that is outfitted for wheelchair user use. And both gender sets of toilets have baby change facilities. I think the ADA may encourage this layout, as opposed to separate accessible rooms.

It's also pretty common for all the toilets to be individual gender neutral accessible rooms, in places where there's only a need for a couple of loos (smaller shops, bars, etc.)

[sTeamTraen]

I'm just back from Japan, where in some places they have "ostomy" toilets, specially kitted out for colostomy/ileostomy patients.

The public toilets in Japan (and Korea) (and Taiwan, or at least the ones outside the ticket barriers on the Taipei metro) are immaculate.

[Trinucleus]

I'm just back from Japan, where in some places they have "ostomy" toilets, specially kitted out for colostomy/ileostomy patients.

The public toilets in Japan (and Korea) (and Taiwan, or at least the ones outside the ticket barriers on the Taipei metro) are immaculate.

My wife needs to change stoma bags and needs space to do that, so prefers the 'disabled' toilet. 'Accessible' seems a sensible thing to call them

[Tessa K]

I was in Kings X station earlier and both Accessible toilets were being used by women with a child (not a baby).

[Sciolus]

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...

Technically, they were always "accessible toilets" rather than "disabled toilets" but they were commonly known by the latter name. However, it seems some people are starting to assume that the name "accessible" means they are just generally there for anyone who wants a little more space.

You can find comments all over parenting forums with people saying things like "it's fine to use it if you need space as you've got a kid and lots of shopping bags - as 'accessible' means it's not just for people with disabilities".

These people are wrong. Many people need toilets urgently at short notice, and part of the purpose of disabled/accessible toilets is to be available when these people need them, not occupied by entitled people spending twenty minutes fussing over their precious darlings.

[Tessa K]

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...

Technically, they were always "accessible toilets" rather than "disabled toilets" but they were commonly known by the latter name. However, it seems some people are starting to assume that the name "accessible" means they are just generally there for anyone who wants a little more space.

You can find comments all over parenting forums with people saying things like "it's fine to use it if you need space as you've got a kid and lots of shopping bags - as 'accessible' means it's not just for people with disabilities".

These people are wrong. Many people need toilets urgently at short notice, and part of the purpose of disabled/accessible toilets is to be available when these people need them, not occupied by entitled people spending twenty minutes fussing over their precious darlings.

I agree. Children are not a disability.

[Grumble]

They aren’t, but family friendly toilets are such a rarity I’ve only encountered them once, in the Trafford Centre. Don’t make out people are wasting time fussing over their kids. You don’t know what’s going on in there so don’t f.cking assume they’re taking the piss.

[noggins]

The name doesn’t f.cking mattrr. What matters is adequate public toilet provision for all. And the shithousekeepers can f.ck off.

[Woodchopper]

They aren’t, but family friendly toilets are such a rarity I’ve only encountered them once, in the Trafford Centre. Don’t make out people are wasting time fussing over their kids. You don’t know what’s going on in there so don’t f.cking assume they’re taking the piss.

They’re not taking the piss, but they are very likely wiping up sh.t. Anyone who takes 20 minutes to change a nappy is seriously off their game. Possible I guess with a temporary carer who is out of practice.

[Woodchopper]

Here’s a contrary position.

a) It’s fine for a wide variety of people who aren’t covered by standard definitions of disability to use the disabled/accessible toilets, eg taking medication, performing a medical procedure, feeling uncomfortable or unsafe in the multi-stall toilets.

b) Use surely applies to carers as well if a person is unable to do the things that need to be done.

c) There is no functional reason why a) and b) doesn’t apply to an infant and their carer if the infant urgently needs a nappy change or other necessary action. Delayed nappy changing can lead to medical problems.

d) By all means call for disabled toilets to only be used by people who fall within standard definitions of disability. It would be good if there were separate dedicated toilets for disabled people, infants, medical uses and people who feel uncomfortable or unsafe (and others who I may not have mentioned).

But allowing use of the disabled/accessible toilet for all covered by a) and explicitly excluding infants and their carers is discriminatory, especially as in practice most of the carers are mothers, grandmothers, aunties, sisters, daughters etc.

[IvanV]

You can find comments all over parenting forums with people saying things like "it's fine to use it if you need space as you've got a kid and lots of shopping bags - as 'accessible' means it's not just for people with disabilities".

What should the name be to avoid this confusion?

"Toilet for anyone who wants to use it" looks like a good name. That would avoid the confusion.

Why do you think it isn't fine for anyone to use it, if it is convenient to them, or the other ones are full? In many places, it is the only toilet. Or one of only a small number of toilets and hence part of the number required to supply the general demand.

There are toilets locked with special keys issued to a subset of people. Those ones, you can only get into if you have the key. So if it is really restricted, then there is a standard method of restricting it to that subset.

[bob sterman]

You can find comments all over parenting forums with people saying things like "it's fine to use it if you need space as you've got a kid and lots of shopping bags - as 'accessible' means it's not just for people with disabilities".

What should the name be to avoid this confusion?

"Toilet for anyone who wants to use it" looks like a good name. That would avoid the confusion.

Why do you think it isn't fine for anyone to use it, if it is convenient to them, or the other ones are full? In many places, it is the only toilet. Or one of only a small number of toilets and hence part of the number required to supply the general demand.

There are toilets locked with special keys issued to a subset of people. Those ones, you can only get into if you have the key. So if it is really restricted, then there is a standard method of restricting it to that subset.

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.

RADAR key locked facilities are quite rare - and anyone can get a radar key anyway.

[Grumble]

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.

[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.

Well yes. About 11% of children and about 23% of working age people have a disability (source). So if an adult and two children go into a disabled/accessible toilet, then there is about a one in three chance that one of them has a disability.

[kerrya1]

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.

[bob sterman]

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.

[Grumble]

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.

[bob sterman]

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.

That's your view on what a genuine reason is. And while there are no laws preventing people using accessible toilets for this purpose - but the legal obligation to provide accessible toilet facilities is based on them being a provision for people with disabilities. That is the "accessibility" that they are meant to provide.

[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 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? 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. Because ultimately, it is just a single person loo, and it doesn't really matter who is in there, if they are well behaved. And it is no different from unisex loos.

Increasingly the accessible toilet is the only toilet, for example, on some trains, many restaurants, service stations, etc. (There are also trains with 2 kinds of toilet. But on the trains I mostly use, it is the only the one.) So the idea that they aren't for everyone is just nonsense, at the very least in that case.

Then we move onto places with, say, just 2 toilets. I am often in such places. Are the disabled anywhere near 50% of us? Well they might be in some locations and times, but I rarely experience that. Maybe it will become more common at another time, but so far it doesn't happen to me. So if the population using those loos is, say, 95%+ able, then it is stupid and silly if that 95% don't spread them across the only 2 toilets available, rather than forming a long queue and restricting themselves to just one toilet. I find many people are of the same opinion. It's not very different from the situation where the only toilet is the accessible toilet.