to use a disabled toilet if I've got the buggy?

[MrsHelsBels74]

Pretty much as the thread title says, if you're out in public & need to loo but can't fit the buggy into a normal cubicle is it acceptable to take the buggy into the disabled toilet? I'd never use a disabled parking space but did this today in desperation. So, is it ok or still a no-no?

Rabbits - I can see a bit more than a debate going on, and obviously if people are saying these mothers shouldn't use the toilets then there's no option but to leave the baby on the floor or outside the toilet.

Or maybe we should all go out and get husbands! that way we can actually change a tampon or have a wee without 1. the worry of our babies being abducted and 2. the worry of a disabled person needing to use it halfway through

I am of course being sarcastic.

We don't usually have separate accessible loos here, often you get two loos, one bigger than the other and the accessible one is not a disabled loo (I don't think they have a sign on them??) Sometimes you only get one loo and by law it has to be accessible here. What then??

I'm not sure I like the inference here that people who need an accessible loo are necessarily more likely to be incontinent than those who do not. Yes, there surely are people who have continence issues and also need a bigger cubicle or grab bars, but there are also people who don't and have continence issues.

Mselle - is there even a point to that? Obviously they don't know. But surely that person can wait the minute, just as they'd wait if a disabled person was in the toilet. I fully understand the feeling that those toilets are for 'disabled only', but if it comes to the point where a mother is either going to piss herself or leave her child unguarded, I don't think anyone should deny the woman having a bloody wee!

I'm not sure I like the inference here that people who need an accessible loo are necessarily more likely to be incontinent than those who do not. Yes, there surely are people who have continence issues and also need a bigger cubicle or grab bars, but there are also people who don't and have continence issues

That is a good point.

Of course, women prior to the late 1990s all pissed themselves or had their babies abducted.

If you had a situation where in a service station there is a massive queue for the regular toilets, and an adult who is absolutely busting for a wee (they are not disabled but perhaps their pelvic floor isnt what it once was), and a disabled person who could do with going to the loo and thought they would go whilst they were stopped at the services, but isnt desperate and could probably wait for 10 minutes. Who should get to use the disabled toilet?

This is a genuine question by the way.

I don't find your tone contributes very well to the debate, but I guess I'll say that I have been pointing out that there should be some more thinking done by the establishment and they should look at providing accessible space separate to the disabled toilets for parents, and that if people contact these establishments and comment (as I do very often) that they might listen to these concerns, and then at the end of it, there would be no argument as to who should use the disabled toilet.

There are particular places where it is very very difficult to get to the accessible toilet because of the queue of buggies, and it just shouldn't be the case. I'm not angry at the buggies, I'm angry at the people who thought it was a good idea to stick baby change in the accessible toilet and then only provide one accessible toilet so that it's a YOU or ME situation.

But the person who 'just' has continence issues has the choice of toilets so can go for whichever is nearest. The person who is needs the grab bars, or the extra space to move or whatever NEEDS the disabled toilet.

Neither of those have anything to do with mothers (or fathers) with prams who decide that they can't possible have the slight inconvenience of juggling things in the toilet for a bit in order to leave the disabled facilities for who are disabled.

Is this still going ffs? What ghostship said a few comments down.

In all other situations you must never leave your baby for a second.
In this situation you should leave said baby outside the toilet OR piss yourself OR piss with the regular cubicle door open whilst shouting loudly 'I'm watching my baby'

There really isnt an army of childsnatching, pram stealing baddies lurking outside every cubicle door.

But what if your ladies has the UK's only childsnatching, pram stealing baddie that's looking for a nice little baby to abuse/sell/replace the one they can't have/have just lost etc?

Wow, just wow. I'm amazed at the complacency of some of you. Please God I never take my kids safety for granted to that extent.

Thekidsrule

I think you're misquoting me sorry, my FFS was because I was trying to ask a genuine question about where radar locks are found and DD batted my phone...

No FFS about the thread at all! Sorry if not clear and I pissed snyone off.

I don't find your tone contributes very well to the debate

oh dear. and how did you come to this conclusion pray tell? I'm sorry if my straight forward and none abusive language isn't appropriate

And if a disabled person wets or soils themselves while waiting for you?

Yes, I would. If there was a separate baby change then obviously I would use that but if it was the choice between leaving my child outside the stall or using the disabled, I would use the disabled one.

That's life, Couthy. After all they got free cars and quids, init.

Glitterknickas - not one person has taken that tone or insinuated anything along those lines, what a stupid thing to say.

Couthy - would the disabled person be able to hang on if say, another disabled person was using the loo?

But the person who 'just' has continence issues has the choice of toilets so can go for whichever is nearest. The person who is needs the grab bars, or the extra space to move or whatever NEEDS the disabled toilet.

I understand that, but I've sometimes been waiting for the loo with a friend who needs a stick or wheelchair and who finds it much easier to use an accessible loo who has motioned for me to go first because she knows I am more desperate than her (like when my normal bladder of steel was letting me down because I was pg). Just because she has a disability doesn't mean that she is in greater need, in that particular case I had a more urgent need and she kindly recognised that and was willing to wait.

No but they're considering having a baby 'disabling'.
What do you do when they no longer want to be in a buggy? How do you cope with loo stops then?

I think some people seem to want to take offence or misconstrue the meaning of what is being said by some people. I take that as my point to bow out graciously.

My last message being, if you communicate with places, the generally do try to suit people. I always point out problems with facilities as I see them to the people who can make a difference, instead of accepting that it's just my lot, because things could be changed.

(You are just being a bit overly dramatic and hyperbolic about the situation. I guess I feel like it sometimes could incite negativity towards people who are disabled, attitudes towards them aren't always the kindest right now, so maybe a bit calmer would achieve more? Sorry GhostShip, I am not trying to be offensive, just to put forward my piece on a subject close to me)

TwelveLeggedWalk

ok

There are also people like me, who have had a seizure in a regular cubicle. Firemen can't access you without destroying the door in them as the doors open inwards.

Disabled toilets the doors open outwards so that if someone has collapsed in there, they can still be accessed by emergency services.

Also, the disabled toilets is the only one with an alarm cord if you need urgent medical attention.

I would not use a disabled toilet just because I have a baby - you pick them up and take them in with you, or leave them inside the toilet but outside the cubicle, like I used to have to with my older 3 DC's.

When did child snatchers appear around every corner? They weren't there 14, 10 or 9 years ago...

Ghostship, the point is disabled people have the choice of one, very rarely more than one, toilet. Able bodied people have the choice of far more. There are options open to parents when they are out, without them having to resort to using the disabled toilet. They can chose to use a sling, or wedge the buggy in the opening of the furthest cubicle while they have a quick wee. Even if that means putting 2 cubicles out of order for that minute, it is preferable to putting that one disabled toilet out of order.

I can not choose to make myback, or pelvis, or hips, or legs work better on the day I go out. The old person who has a dodgy hip can't mend it to go shopping, the child who gets scared of a hand dryer can't turn that off because of a trip out. Have a look around you, there are a lot of people with visible disabilities,and many more of us with invisible ones. We all need to use that one toilet. Parents with buggies don't, it is selfish of them to do so.

I don't believe disabled toilets are for people with disabilities and noone else. I believe they are there for anyone who cannot use the normal toilet due to (a) a physical access problem such as a wheelchair, pushchair, crutches etc. or (b) being unable to wait in a queue (presuming there is one) because of IBS, incontinence troubles or whatever.

exactly hazelnut