to politely decline to use the disabled loo?

[MsIngaFewmarbles]

I was waiting in a long queue for the loo in a coffee chain and saw a lady with crutches head into the disabled toilet. She came out while I was still queueing. Another lady further back in the queue caught my eye and offered for me to go in first. I declined saying that I wasn't disabled so wasn't entitled to use it. She then countered away to her friends telling them that she was going to use it as 'it was the law' that if it wasn't being used you could use it. I couldn't face an argument so just ignored her. It's still bothering me that I should have said something to her and corrected her.

I've got a toddler at the moment and for the past two years I've pretty much never encountered a baby change station/parent and child loo that wasn't located in a unisex accessible loo. Most places seem to double up and the accessible loo isn't just restricted as disabled use only? The only exception I can think of is our local John Lewis which has a separate baby change / parent and child loo. I've never seen a baby change in a general men's/women's cubicle/set of loos. Am I missing something? Even in a local child-friendly (chain) restaurant we often go to the radar key loo is also the baby change/parent and child loo (you have to get them to unlock it but they direct you to it and unlock it for you if you ask for somewhere to baby change). Are there many places where they are separate?

Marks and Spencers are separate

as are most leisure centres

The fact is that every single toilet cubicle is not going to be made accessible, and even if they were, that could be to the detriment of people for whom it is difficulty to wait, as there wouldn't be any "protected" cubicles. But there are some people who seem to get really riled up by the sight of empty parking spaces or toilets, like it is some kind of waste if they are not constantly in use. I don't get that attitude.

Dawndonna I'm sorry about your DD. I have to say MN has certainly made me more aware of these issues - I do try and go to places where I know there is somewhere I can get the buggy in a non disabled loo (eg. John Lewis/mothercare) but I also hold my hands up and say that there have been times where I have dashed into a disabled toilet with the buggy.

Marks and Spencers are separate

Not my local one! I avoid it for that very reason.

I see what you mean now - yes ours is separate too, but there is no toilet in the baby change bit so if I need to go as well its a pain so I don't tend to use it.

You know what would help? More loos for everyone.

Why do planners think three loos for fifty million women is acceptable? Or that one token disabled loo in an entire building is acceptable?

People are saying "check to see if anyone needs it/no one is in it" etc need to remember there may be no one waiting, at that time, but if a disabled person comes along to use it WHEN YOU ARE IN IT, they will not be able to get in. Because you are in it. Even though you have no disabilities. And if you are not in, one of the other hundreds of none disabled people who thinks like you is in it. For no reason except laziness or selfishness. You can use any other toilet, we can't. Just stop to think for one minute.

Without exception, the non disabled people I have met coming out of the toilet, have apologised for using it. So they know it's wrong.

Glad I missed the deleted comments, but that coment about "chuckles" ...yes, it's really fucking funny sitting waiting, in a wheelchair outside a toilet because some selfish fucker who didn't want to wait five minutes is making you wait for the only toilet you can use. Ha ha ha. Fucking hilarious.

Before I was disabled, I wouldn't have DREAMT of using a disabled toilet. Now, when I need to, someone who doesn't need it, is in the bloody thing. Karma didn't work for me did it.

In fairness, I always apologise for using it even when I'm technically entitled to

oh ffs good old mn hq
delete the comments by the people who walk the walk
but the smug temp disabled
left

same old same old

I am rubbish at educating, but I have wine and a bar of Milka Daim - which I will share, and I did link to www.changing-places.org/the_campaign.aspx

Yanbu op, it is selfish to use a disabled toilet unless you have a medical need.

I like to think that the vast majority of us are 'good people'. People with morals and common sense - yes, we're all busy and have our own problems, but we try to think of others, as we would expect others to think of us. Surely nobody wants to make anyone's life harder than it already is - particularly somebody with disabilities.

Some of these posts are shocking - and frankly, downright disgusting. I just hope that next time one of you uses an accessible loo out of selfishness, rather than genuine need, you're not confronted with somebody who genuinely needed to use that toilet urgently and has subsequently had an accident.

Is saving a few minutes queuing really worth it?

You understand how queue theory works, right? If you reduce the number of usable toilets from, say, three cubicles to two cubicles, it will greatly increase the average waiting time. Regular toilet queues are also full of people who may urgently need the toilet but wouldn't qualify as disabled.

I maintain that in terms of creating maximum comfort for everyone, it makes sense for people to use accessible toilets as long as they are quick.

I have never even heard of queue theory.

What I do understand though is that there is usually 1 toilet that is accessible of those that have a greater need for it, because they are disabled. Not using that toilet when you could wait and use one of the other toilets, is the decent thing to do.

You might 'maintain' that view but can you not see it's terribly selfish?

Your logic does not 'create maximum comfort for everyone'. Because somebody with disabilities will not be 'comfortable', will they?

And yes, I understand how the queue theory works perfectly, thanks.

Not only that, but there are people who need accessible loos but not in a hurry and people who need loos in a hurry but not accessible (for which the queue theory would help with) and those that need both. Is it reasonable to ask someone who is not in a hurry but needs an accessible loo to wait for one person so that the queue is more quickly reduced for those who need one quickly? I'm hearing that many people think no, that is not reasonable and yes some people do think it reasonable.

Queue theory may predict the average waiting times by constructing a model to predict queue lengths and the consequent waiting times (I am guessing), but has fuck all to do with being a decent human being and waiting a bit longer so that someone with a greater need can access the disabled toilet (ie the toilet designed to be more accessible for disabled people)

The thing is selfconfessed, you could be using the accessible toilet feeling safe in knowledge that nobody desperately needed it when you entered, but how would you know someone hadn't appeared, while you were in the toilet, who did urgently need to use the accessible loo?

Queue theory may predict the average waiting times by constructing a model to predict queue lengths and the consequent waiting times (I am guessing), but has fuck all to do with being a decent human being and waiting a bit longer so that someone with a greater need can access the disabled toilet (ie the toilet designed to be more accessible for disabled people)

Very well said, hazeyjane

Why do all disabled people need the lav immediately or they will have an accident? Do you all think that because they are disabled they don't have full control of their bladder? Or can't organise themselves to find one with time to spare? How offensive!