To be annoyed at being told to be considerate of disabled people

[DefendingPan]

This sign was in the disabled toilet in a restaurant (which is also the only baby change in the restaurant).

What’s the point of this sign? What might parents be doing that they will stop after reading this?

Reckon this thread makes it bloody clear that a sign isn't anywhere near enough and for some arseholes, nothing will ever help.

It's a dumb sign which accomplishes nothing.

All the complaints in this thread may be valid but none are addressed by this particular sign.

In general signs that just say "be nice" are useless. If people are not noticing something that causes a problem, like not putting the table up when they are done, saying "be nice" will not increase the chances they realize they need to do that.

That all being said, I believe a large percentage of signs you see around for the public are completely useless or even misleading.

You know when we are out & about with DS we have to carefully plan beforehand to ensure we can meet his needs including accessible toilets. Nor did a baby have the same needs for privacy & dignity as adult DS now has. There is no parity of need here.

And no it is not a dual purpose space if it is a designated wheelchair toilet. I agree & have said that having the baby change in there is stupid and so is the sign....but I fail to see why the disabled should just roll over and accept their facilities being used just because the management of this venue don't want to make proper provision for parents with small children. If parents think it is not good enough they need to complain and lobby for better facilities as the disabled have for theirs.

100%. Any reference to dual or shared space is IMHO a deliberate attempt to distract or divert attention away from this inalienable truth.

Removal of these facilities from disabled facilities cannot come soon enough in my view. If that means that facilities are lacking for other groups then tough. Those groups will need to campaign to have their needs served. If they can only have their needs met by preventing the disabled from meeting their own then this should be considered unacceptable and in need of change.

It is not only disabled people who need large toilet cubicles, as has been explained numerous times in this thread. It would be advantageous to have the changing table located elsewhere but it is essential for a mother, who often has no pelvic floor left to speak of, to be able to use the loo. This is impossible if they have a pram in a standard sized cubicle. They cannot simply lock their baby out so a large cubicle is absolutely essential for them too. The problem is a lack of planning (I have no evidence for this but I suspect a lot of places are designed by clueless men).

Disabled toilets are for the disabled. It is just not good enough to expect them to share their spaces with other people when in practice (as always happens) that results in them losing access to what are supposed to be their own dedicated spaces. No I do not accept that they should be used by anyone who perceives they 'need' them.

Wheelchair users need the space for their wheelchair. Ever tried manoeuvring a wheelchair? The wheelchair is essential for getting about for those adult users who (alongside other adults) want to be independent. I utterly reject the idea that parents 'need' this space in the same way that disabled people do. There are usually adjustments that parents can make - smaller prams, asking friends/companions to mind the baby etc. Or just planning ahead.

You may well be right about the lack of planning. It is daft to put the only changing table in the disabled loo. As I have stated many times above, if parents think they are not adequately catered for they need to campaign and lobby for better provision (as disabled people have previously done). But they are not entitled to disabled people's spaces.

I have no evidence for this but I suspect a lot of places are designed by clueless men

Having worked in infant feeding services and disabled and the carer to a disabled child, I also have no evidence but I'd put money on this being true.

Useless men and their useless nipples have almost certainly designed many of the family centres I've worked in, and I was delighted to find our local ikea had a feeding area for nursing mothers who wanted privacy only to find out its a privacy screen from the cafe, but leaves you exposed to the corner window facing an A road.

I haven't been many places though where within a short walking distance or a disabled accessible toilet, there isn't also an ambulatory toilet with space for a pushchair and a small bunch of children.

If the disabled toilet was the only facility I'd still be pretty pissed off as it is a shit design that deliberately disadvantages disabled people, but I'd be able to grit my teeth probably while pissing or shitting myself though, however I've not come across many places where an ambulatory toilet within a toilet facility isn't within a reasonable short walk of a distance.

I still think services intended with disabled people in mind shouldnt be further limited by being accessible to all. I think it's quite common for people to not want marginalised groups spaces to be impeded on by other groups of people.

I have the smallest pram on the market - it does not fit in a cubicle. Of course where possible you leave the child with someone you know but you’re not always out with someone else. Fwiw I think it’s ridiculous to put a changing table in a disabled loo because some parents do take the piss and it’s entirely unnecessary but if that’s where it’s located then that is not the fault of the parent and they will have to use it. I am utterly aghast to find from this thread that women breastfeed in there - obviously, that’s ridiculous. However, an accessible loo is necessary because everyone has the right to access a toilet and if you’re with a pram of any size - a necessary piece of equipment - the small cubicles are inaccessible. If people are taking the mick then maybe we should go back to keys or keypads on the doors like Costa has where the proprietor can use their own discretion for appropriate use.

Well this thread is a thoroughly depressing read. I have a disability and actively avoid using disabled loos unless I have no alternative on the day, I've always worked on the concept that if I can access another facility then it's fair and right to leave the disabled facility for someone who won't have a choice in using the alternatives.

Sadly changes to sanitaryware design are making it harder and harder for me to use public toilets and are forcing me into disabled ones on a more regular basis.

We need to create designs that cater for everyone and that is the sort of campaign that almost everyone on this site could be getting behind. The built environment around us is largely designed by able bodied men and we need far more collaboration and conversation regarding building regulations etc.

I don't think it's a good idea to defend the rights of one group by acting like another group is less important.

This is what disabled people have to put up with every day in one form or another. Disabled toilets used to be just that. For disabled people. They were mostly locked and people had radar keys - thus ensuring the facilities were accessible and not abused.

Then someone decided to remove ‘disabled’ and replace it with ‘accessible’. Meaning that disabled people no longer have exclusive access to facilities designed and built for them. And to add to the erosion of their rights, baby changing facilities were added. Disabled facilities have become less accessible to the very people they were designed for - in fact disabled facilities actually don’t exist any more, they’ve been redesignated as accessible for all who need them, regardless of disability. If that’s not a prime example of one group acting like another group is less important, then l don’t know what is.

It’s a terrible shame that your experiences have left you so bitter and I am truly sorry you have not felt more valued and welcomed by society.

It probably means don't take too long, put the table away and don't leave a mess.

Not sure who that’s directed at, but if it’s me, save your pity. It’s not all my personal experience - as l said upthread I’ve been quite fortunate in my experiences. But I worked for a very long time as a disability outreach worker and the way l’ve posted reflects the things l’ve seen and heard, and the issues I’ve been actively professionally involved in.

Society in general doesn’t welcome or value disabled people. If it did, we wouldn’t need an Equality Act, disabled people would be better supported to integrate into society, better represented and supported in employment and with better pay, parents wouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail for a decent education for their SEND children, we wouldn’t be singled out and judged as scroungers and cheats by the media and many of our able bodied peers for claiming the benefits we’re entitled to, and yes, ‘disabled toilet’, would mean exactly that. These, and other issues, too many to list here, are the lived experience of very many disabled people and none of them are going to change any time soon judging by some of the condescension and ignorance on this depressing thread.

What I find striking - in the disrespect for disabled people and their resources displayed by so many posters - is the hypocrisy on display on MN. Here on this very site, numerous posters have argued on numerous threads on the need to keep women's safe spaces dedicated to them and not allow men to access them. Yet people are arguing on here non-disabled people should be able to access disabled facilities whenever they feel like it having justified it in their own heads as a 'need'.

I don't want to go off topic but I don't think I am really. There is a common theme of people taking over spaces and facilities dedicated to others through intimidating and browbeating those others, and relying on spurious excuses to justify what they are doing. On this very thread, one poster was much more concerned about a potential misgendering than they were about the implications for the disabled of compromising their facilities.

So all in all, this is a troubling and distressing thread and certain individuals need to be examining their own consciences.

Can’t you just take the baby out of the pram, take them with you into a normal cubicle and leave the pram outside?

What and have a wee, or worse, a poo with a baby on the floor of a public toilet? Even if you don’t agree with taking the pram in you must be able to see that isn’t an acceptable scenario.

I used to take my DD in in a sling. I even did the same at home when she was very small!

I don't disagree, but just to note that they'd need to put a table in the women's and the men's if that's where it's going. Which I think is also why a lot of places think putting it in the disabled toilet is the 'best' solution - it's a unisex space so they only need one then.

I wore my children in a sling a lot too - but then that would have negated the need for a pushchair. So it’s not likely, if you also have a pushchair, that you have a sling readily available too.

You put this better than I did in my post.

Perhaps people or/ and Disabled rights UK et all could lobby for disabled toilets, which are actually accessible facilities, to just be for their sole purpose in law.
Perhaps that would solve the issue
Currently they are not.
Currently they are large enough and have adaptations to suit a disabled persons needs and the needs of anyone that needs a larger space or immediate access etc.

Of note Bregs does not allow baby changing in a disabled / accessible WC in larger premises any more. This is for newly built or converted properties. I’m not currently aware of any changes in requirements to smaller establishments, which I’m guessing OPs KFC probably might be.

as I’m sure you know ( I’ve read your posts) you don’t have to take the baby out of their pram as Bregs and Bstandards allow for larger spaces such as all accessible toilets ( which includes disabled wcs with the wheelchair sign ) for your use as well.
It’s Equality and being inclusive. As I’ve mentioned before even people with luggage have a justifiable reason.
It’s all about numbers and use
Currently the standards are woefully lacking in terms of provision for all of these groups
Perhaps we all need to write to our MPs

How (genuinely) did parents manage before accessible toilets existed?

Absolutely agree
As a late 50s female architect that has been campaigning for better facilities for the best part of my career I can say I have definitely lost the fight

I can’t even get developers ( men ) to offset the WC in a womens cubicle so the sanitary bin can fit in.
Let alone provide enough facilities in terms of numbers, hence the queues….still.

Facilities are moving on in terms of building regs and larger public buildings now have to accommodate different types of disabled facilities with some now requiring facilities to change adults. We are however a long way off from providing enough or for everyone
If a developer ‘says’ they can’t afford it or don’t have the space they can more often than not get away with under providing.
Much the same as S106s on new housing or Angela Raynor now deciding for herself what’s acceptable, that has just reduced our voice.

When I was younger if you went shopping with your parents you didn’t spend all day doing it. Coffee shops were rare and generally people didn’t stay all day shopping and eating out. Having a coffee was a real luxury.
Certainly by the 80s though there were facilities. ( probably before I have no recollection, I’m not old enough )
There were more public toilets too. Many of these have now been closed down due to
vandalism
cost of upkeep
abuse by drug users and people having sex in them