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?

I suppose in the same way as disabled - they struggled. Hence having to legislate to allow women to breastfeed in public.

Agree with your last para
Apart from once at centre parks ( changing facilities, not toilets ) I’ve never encountered queues for accessible toilets either and a survey was carried out recently on use in high public use areas with the same findings.
I was involved in this and there was only one problem place, a Sainsburies in a large town. The problem however was due to temporary closure of both the mens and ladies toilets because of flooding.

End users need to be involved in the design of facilities, simple as that.

Best baby change I ever saw was in Debenhams Cardiff. Separate to the accessible/disabled toilet, had full sized and child sized toilets, sink, proper unit for changing the baby rather than fold down (DS hated the fold down ones, would scream the place down), loads of space, more than enough for a double buggy. It was brilliant.

Worst, outside of not having any, was a fold down baby change in a rather small cubicle. Couldn't get alongside it so with DS hating the things anyway it was useless for us. Floor was really wet so couldn't change him in the floor either.

Nothing to do with baby changes, but one memorable public toilet had cubicles so narrow that with the toilet roll holder narrowing it further it was difficult for me, size 12 at the time, to turn round in the cubicle. Older facility so originally it wouldn't have had the massive toilet roll holder, but did nobody consider the impact on users of adding them? Larger women, heavily pregnant women, would find it impossible to use, couldn't have taken a toddler in with me, anyone on crutches would have found it extremely awkward or impossible. Just having a large bag would have caused problems.

Agree
When I was working on a large shopping centre I was heavily pregnant with twins.
We got the provision in in terms of numbers for women but they wouldn’t make the individual cubicles larger
On a snagging visit I demonstrated how a pregnant women could get into the toilets by standing on the WC ( I needed help ) and only then being able to close the door. I wasn’t able turn around though.
They didn’t enlarge any cubicles because
” then you use the disabled toilets if you’re too large “ ….. their minuted response. All men with kids btw.

Completely disagree. Multiple people on this thread have tried to explain the difficulties that can occur when non-disabled people try to commandeer disabled toilets. You seem mostly unwilling to take on board anything that is being said and still seem wedded to the idea that your right as a parent to use these loos is on a par with that of a disabled person. Personally I think it's you that this thread doesn't reflect well on.

I think it’s a reflection of the current laws tbh
Which @WinterBird24 is aware of.

Except I’ve accepted on more than one occasion that it is not on a par. 🧐

But earlier in the thread you were also saying you 'don’t feel you should have to justify' using the disabled loo as a strategy for keeping your children safe. Your posts in that part of the thread kind of undermine your statement that you accept it's not on a par

Although the thread isn’t about access and who has the right of use it’s about a sign asking for the facility to be kept clean.

which of course it should.

This is very patronising but also indicates to me that you have no knowledge of disability.

I do not want parents to have nowhere to change their baby.

But I resent disabled (hard fought through campaigning) spaces becoming defacto "accessible" spaces.

Parents or people interested in the subject should fight for similar spaces which are "parent toilets".

It is not just about the toilet being kept clean.....it is about the uselessness and pointlessness of the notice with its appeal for users to be considerate (and it is evidently not the disabled who are guilty of being inconsiderate).

It has become about the utter cluelessness of certain individuals and their lack of awareness of disabled people's needs. That started with the original poster's thread title expressing annoyance at the need to be considerate of disabled people, so you can't blame posters for it taking that turn.

Also, the futility of putting up notices requesting people to be considerate. Those who are considerate will always be so, and for those who aren't, a notice won't cause them to suddenly see the light. And as always it will be the most vulnerable group (ie the disabled) who will pay the highest price for others' selfishness.

'This thread does not reflect well on disabled people.'

Just when I think I've heard it all. Of course, disabled people are supposed to 'be kind' and be pathetically grateful for the concessionary crumbs thrown their way. And yet here they are on this thread getting uppity.

I'n the real world, I have never encountered a situation where there’s been a life or death battle between me and the wheelchair (or disabled) user ....It’s never as heated as this thread suggests but maybe I hang out in the wrong places.'

And this. Well you wouldn't encounter that would you? Is it hard to understand that a disabled person - who may have any number of hidden conditions and thus feel vulnerable - may not feel able to stand up for their rights or feel equal to having a heated discussion? You know, empathy.

This thread has been very revealing - in a bad way - about how a large number of people feel about the disabled. They may consider themselves, and even be, decent people who have generally benign feelings towards disabled people; unless and until they are faced with situations which cause inconvenience to themselves. It doesn't take much for some people to default to 'me me me'.

There is actually no law to say whether able bodied, or any other group can or cannot use ‘accessible’ toilets. ‘Accessible’ is a concession. Only the right of disabled people to equal access to suitable toilet facilities is enshrined in law. Before the Equality Act 2010, stand alone toilet rooms were exclusively for the use of disabled people and their carers and most were kept locked, requiring a Radar key. The drafting of the Equality Act seems to have overridden this and now only recognises that disabled people have ‘priority’ in stand alone lockable toilet rooms, which are designed for disabled people and their carers, and allow wheelchair access - however it would seem contradictory to the Act to site baby changing facilities exclusively in these areas.

What it comes down to is the removal of the word ‘disabled’, which has been replaced with ‘accessible’. To my mind this waters down existing disability legislation to the point where it’s meaningless - as evidenced by the opinions of some on this thread.

I meant, which I think you realise, that I have never been in a situation where someone has had to give way to me or been behind me in a queue for disabled facilities. I have simply never used facilities where there was a queue. Ever. So I can’t possibly have inconvenienced someone who wasn’t there.

What annoyed me about the post was the vagueness. I asked (and many have answered) what specifically I was being asked to be doing differently by the sign.

Why does everyone need to fight to be accommodated? It would be a short campaign, wouldn’t it?

”we want changing facilities”
“but you have them”
”yes but the thread on MN told us we must not use them”
🙄 I can’t see it taking off.

I have plenty of first hand experiences of disability, although accessing toilets has never been the most challenging part of that. When caring for an autistic teenager with the mind of a toddler who is volatile and challenging without notice, frankly finding a toilet has been the absolute least of my concerns because I have not ever found that they were not available - and yes said teenager has legitimate radar key, together with blue badge.

Well exactly
The thread has morphed into something else
As they often do

But Ross I’ve been telling you this all along

except for opinion re last para.

The facilities, to date, have never been exclusive.

Well yes if you go about it by not actually stating what you want...

But that would be fucking stupid and I think you know that.

We're suggesting, we're asking you, to make it clear to places that force the sharing of inadequate facilities, that you're not happy with that.

'I really dislike being forced to use shared facilities, I would prefer baby changes to be included into the main toilets, or a separate baby change provided. I will be prioritising businesses who do this.'

On its own of course, yes, we're all pissing in the wind there but if somewhere like MumsNet got behind it... things could change.

The word ‘disabled’ has been removed and replaced with ‘accessible’. This waters down any existing legislation regarding disabled toilets and gives access to anyone who needs them regardless of the reason for need. And it gives building planners the excuse to site baby changing facilities in them because to all intents and purposes they are not disabled facilities any more - even though that’s what they were designed for.

That, as I suspect you know, is the crux of the matter. It’s the watering down of existing legislation so that it’s open to interpretation that’s the problem. The Equality Act states that disabled people are entitled to equal provision of suitable and usable facilities. Providing one accessible toilet suitable for wheelchair users and their carers, opening it up for anyone else to use and then siting baby changing facilities in it is not equal and usable provision when for many, it’s the only facility they are able to use - wheelchairs, for example, won’t fit into a standard cubicle. This is the equivalent of a parent upthread saying her pram won’t fit in to a standard cubicle. But instead of campaigning for dedicated facilities, parents have piggy backed on the provision of disabled toilets, and building planners have capitalised on the watering down of the legislation. If parents want access to wider cubicles and unhindered baby changing facilities then they should damn well lobby for their own. This has been said over and over again by various posters on the thread but you seem oblivious.

Things have changed bregs states larger facilities can’t do this
Smaller facilities don’t have to conform though. If Space is at a premium

Someone upthread pointed out the purchasing power of parents. They could capitalise on that and threaten to take their business to places that take their needs more seriously than chucking a baby changing table in a disabled loo and expecting them to take the flak when a disabled person wants to go the the loo and can’t.

The equal opportunities act started the ball rolling in the 1970s. Provision of disabled toilets as stand alone facilities were slowly rolled out and were exclusively reserved for the use of disabled people. They were locked facilities and disabled people could apply to their local authority and various other disability charities and organisations for a free Radar key. Evidence of disability had to be produced before a key would be issued and they were mostly free. What would you call that if not exclusive ? Current disability legislation calls for the equal provision of toilet facilities for the disabled. As I said upthread, providing one accessible toilet which is open to all, including baby changing facilities is not fulfilling that provision. And the provision of accessible toilets and baby changing facilities is a concession, not a legal right. But the right of disabled people to equal provision of suitable toilets is legally enforceable.

I appreciate that you have avoided toilets where there is an existing queue; but you can't possibly know that you have never inconvenienced anyone by using a facility you don't need. For all you know someone who needed the toilet & found it occupied may have felt they had to look for another, or waited patiently (or desperately) outside.