To use the disabled loo when I'm with my son?

[RestingBitch]

My sons 9 months and obviously still in his pushchair. The majority of the time it's just me and him when I go into town/visit places. When I need the loo I get an attack of conscious, I normally use the disabled loo so I can bring him in with me.
Can't use a regular loo as I can't get him in the cubicle in his chair. Don't want to take him out of his pushchair and plonk him on the floor as the floors are manky and he will eat whatever is on the floor. He'll also probably try and crawl under the gap and interrupt someone else. Don't really like the idea of leaving him in his pushchair whilst I nip in the cubicle, so providing there isn't someone waiting for the disabled loos, AIBU to use them? I'm usually in and out and so far I've never encountered anyone waiting for one, or the impatient rattle of the door. If I am being unreasonable, short of pissing myself what's the options?

Not a troll, and don't work for any newspapers :).

Oh I missed out

"Just needing a quick wee"
Being transgender (opens can of worms...)
Needing to get changed
Drug use
Sex

I don't remember any of those being mentioned as valid reasons but crack on with your exaggerations.

How do you not understand: the more people you add to the "acceptable" list, the more people who are likely to be there at the same time. It's not rocket science.

One of the local towns around here recently had its public toilet facilities redesigned. When it reopened the block was one long row of what you could call "accessible toilets". Perhaps a dozen of them, some with baby changers. All large cubicles which could easily take prams and/or perhaps some wheelchairs. I think too that there is an even larger cubicle on each end with other facilities for people who need them.

Before that they just had a few poky little cubicles in the ladies, a single disabled / accessible toilet in which they put the baby changing facility, and whatever they had for men (never went in to look).

Personally, I think the new design is far better. It takes account of the needs of women (or men) who may have young children with them as well as (to the best of my knowledge) people with disabilities.

Better town planning is the way forward for most of this. It isn't a new problem.

I have IBS. I have also had three babies at times when the only public changing facilities were invariably in the disabled toilet. In addition, I have also had injuries which involved a limb in a large cast, meaning I couldn't even turn around in the normal toilet cubicles so had to use the disabled one.

I don't consider myself disabled and never use the disabled toilet if I don't absolutely have to, but I admit that the above reasons have occasionally made it necessary.

They have all been mentioned in the eight billion previous threads on the subject.

I don't consider myself disabled and never use the disabled toilet if I don't absolutely have to, but I admit that the above reasons have occasionally made it necessary

Well according to some here you should be strung up. Just to warn you.

Yeah coz no one ever starts a thread like this deliberately to be goady.

Indeed, mychild. And people never come along when the thread is in full swing and goad some more just for the shits and giggles either.

Dunno who that was aimed at but I think you'll find I posted earlier admitting earlier that I may have used the disabled toilet with my dd in tow on occasion but would reconsider that decision in future. But calling people precious fucking snowflakes and demanding that people claim DLA before being allowed to use a disabled toilet is goady imo.

I find it strange so many threads moaning about lines in women's toilets compared to men and planning etc, it's so wrong yada yada yada, but then so many will take a disabled toilets without a care when disabled people have normally only one available toilet and often much more pressing needs

I use the diabled loo if I have my baby in a pushchair. It's an accessible loo. Also has a baby change station and what else can I do leave the baby entrusted to my care outside on her own while I go pee?

It's fine.

And also take a look at the thread many people saying to use the disabled toilet if there are so many and it's rife offline also, imagine how limited it is for disabled people

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular lampshade, it is just something that is generally common on these threads.

If you think the DLA and snowflake comments are goady then surely that demonstrates this to you?

PS, I'm still waiting for that legislation stating that a disabled access toilet (when it is not the only one in a small cafe designed for all, but one alongside ladies, gents and baby change) is legally there for everyone to use.

'Also has a baby change station and what else can I do leave the baby entrusted to my care outside on her own while I go pee? '

Obviously the combined baby change/disabled toilets are different. I think what we are talking about here is the ones, of which there are plenty, where the baby change facilities and disabled/accessible toilet is separate.

I would just use the baby change one if I were you. Or carry on using a combined one. Those solely for those with disabilities then no, don't.

I never said people had to claim DLA to use a disabled toilet.

I know, Lampshade, I have enough experience of these threads.

I have also given the reasons why using the disabled toilet was occasionally necessary for me. It was especially necessary when an attack of my IBS coincided with my limb in a large cast.

As a general rule though, I will use the regular toilets. Those occasions were one-offs.

My twins both post on this site.

Nice to see they set up their own accounts now Dawn :) hi twins!

You're all going round in circles, and the problem is it's a huge grey area because need and ability are subjective.

Someone who is deaf but perfectly fit in every other way can be classed as disabled and could be on DLA etc - they don't need to use a disabled toilet as they have no limitations preventing them from using the regular ones, but they would be entitled to.

Many people who have stoma bags are not legally classed as disabled, but I would argue their NEED to use an accessible toilet is far greater than that of someone who is deaf, even though according to many here people who are not disabled should "jog on".

Perhaps instead of clawing at each others throats, it would be better to acknowledge that people's individual struggles can be varied, many, and complex, and to join forces and campaign for the provision of greater levels of accessible toilets for all.

I see it as an accessible loo for anyone who needs it. I have a radar key (hidden disability) and often hold the door for mums with prams or small children. If the loo is not in use, why shouldn't someone make use of it if using the other loo is difficult? Whether you're disabled, have continence issues, are pregnant, suddenly feel sick, have a sprained ankle, IBS, a pram or need to keep young children enclosed while you wee... why does it matter? Use the loo that is best suited to your needs.

Daymoth, a voice of reason!

Of course having a stoma is a "disability" when it comes to toiletting. I would like to see an explanation for why it isn't. It isn't comparable to pushing a pram in any way that's for sure!

Legislation is on your councils website. Not linking to mine for obvious reasons. Can you find any legislations forbidding able bodied people from using them?

If you google 'invisibile disability' a whole myriad of things apply, including food allergies and migraines. By this threads logic, people suffering with these conditions are acceptable for using accessible spaces. In that case, I'm almost positive anyone in the U.K. Alone can use them as you'll be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't experience one or the other. Saying otherwise is disablist.

I can't find any legislation saying either way, that's why I asked.