Tried three places for lunch today and none cater for women

What's that got to do with what I wrote? I had a friend who was in a wheelchair and I often used to go out to lunch with her. I know what limitations she had. My point still stands. We didn't go to quirky old pubs or other inaccessible places. But I like to go to places that, unfortunately, she couldn't. She, on the other hand, went to many places that I couldn't afford. Should that be made illegal too?

https://www.euansguide.com

I have used this website before when I have needed to check out the accessibility of places.

It’s also worth remembering that accessible means different things to different people depending on their circumstances and what helps one person could be a barrier to another. Its a balancing act!

But non disabled people dont have access to everywhere all of the time. Theres lots of places I cant go because I wouldnt be able to eat there. Those places are not accessible to me due to a physical need but not a disability (although I do have a disability elsewhere). Not everywhere has to be accessible or usable by every single member of the public.

When people have posted in a straight forward manner about lack of accessibility there have been suggestions of calling ahead, maybe checking with disability organisations.
Well meant but why should we have to?
Imagine the outrage if women had to ask in advance if they could get into a pub or cafe?

Because it's a simple, easy solution which would save a lot of grief but then what could you complain about!!

I've called ahead to plenty of places to see if they were suitable with small children, a pram etc and never felt the need to get butthurt over it.

Yes not the same as a disability but accessibility is accessibility unless it only applies to the disabled

Tell me you've got no experience of disabilities, without telling me...!

Exactly. Every old quirky pub, every cottagey tea room, every unusual restaurant in a tower or a basement, the cafe at the top of Snowdon... They'd all have to close. Fair enough - insist that all new venues should be accessible and that others should try to be. But don't spoil things for everyone.

Yeh it was so clear, as clear as some of your post
Thexladt line made it clear
😳😳

Which 'other people'? Most people don't have access to everywhere. Increasing accessibility = great, but the negative attitude is unnecessary. Many people can't afford to eat out - I can't remember the last time I did. I have PTSD and can't use a lot of public transport. Campaigning for positive change is good, but attitudes like 'everyone can do everything except me' are just inaccurate and unhelpful.

It's really not a case of "shouldn't".

Your question is disingenuous.

OP can absolutely exercise her right not to call ahead in protest against the realities of an imperfect world, but I think that would be cutting off her nose to spite her face.

That's legal???

I'm sure you know this better than I do, but if at any of these premises you can identify "reasonable adaptations" that haven't been made and would have allowed you practical access, you can report the businesses to Trading Standards. It is a legal requirement, after all.

I'm sorry you had such a rotten time.

What were the particular issues, can I ask? Are we talking stairs or badly placed furniture or what?

I can imagine many loos are a nightmare - they can be awkward enough no matter how many working legs you've got.

Your post doesn't make sense.

Toilets are toilets. Go anywhere you fancy doesn't matter what it says on the door.

People didnt understand the analogy because your opening post is poorly written. It isn't clear that there is an analogy to understand at all.

As it is, since you have clarified your post I wholeheartedly understand your frustration and outrage.

But were they very old buildings which would make it impossible to install an accessible toilet?

If you spoke in riddles in the cafes I'm not surprised you couldn't be accommodated

That's ridiculous. Why go on about women and penises?? Just say disability. Do you have a problem with this? Or were you trying to attract more interest to the post by using a completely different word, and meaning? FFS

Clearly I have hugely over estimated people’s understanding.

No, you over-estimated the clarity of your original post. You could have made your point much more strongly without the attempt at analogy.

Approx 1.5% of the population use a wheelchair. If places can accommodate they should. But if they can’t, what are you suggesting?

That is awful.

I thought access was enshrined in law.

Last week I got on a bus. I stood back to allow the lady in the wheelchair to get on the bus before me. She said "no point, there's already a chair on there"

She had to wait another 30 mins for the next bus a wheelchair user had taken the one place earlier in the route.

I spent a long time thinking what a terrible way to treat people, but concluded there was little I could do to change it.

I'm sorry you had such a terrible experience today @Mrsmunchofmunchington

and sometimes the place claims it is wheelchair accessible or someone on the phone does and fails to mention the 3 steps down to the 'accessible' toilet which means it isn't actually accessible at all.

Or they do have an accessible toilet which is level and you think 'great!' until you get there and it is so tiny you can barely squeeze in a child's wheelchair so an adults wheelchair certainly isn't getting in.

So….by this logic, every single restaurant/ cafe in a non accessible building should be instantly shut down? Or should the government destroy old/ listed buildings?

If places are able to make things wheelchair accessible then by law they have to. If they can’t, they can’t.

Super clever analogy.

message certainly got through to me.

it truly IS disgraceful tbh. I don’t know what the solution is as some venues don’t have space for a proper toilet. Accessibility should be mandatory though!

We have magical technology like the internet, and phones, so we can check if the places we would like to go suit our needs.