Full length doors on toilets

[Gerri1992]

Moved to here to avoid off-topic in other thread:

Keeptoiletssafe said "The consequence will be that businesses etc will seek to fund and refurb to full length cubicles. This design is dangerous to men, women and children at their most vulnerable. It obviously affects people with disabilities such as epilepsy, diabetes, people at risk of strokes, cardiac arrest, self harm, drug overdosing, fainting from female conditions like endometriosis, pregnancy and miscarriage more. Assaults on women and children will rise. No longer will people with ambulant disabilities have reasonable adjustments for safer provision in case they collapse suddenly."

I'm confused about this because I use disabled toilets and they are always full-length doors with no gaps. Can anyone explain?

Don't they have an emergency cord to pull in them? I'm assuming the others don't.

Yes, they usually have an emergency cord in disabled toilets but not standard ones. Also part of the danger of the floor to ceiling doors is being unable to open (inwards) the door if there's someone collapsed behind it, which could easily happen in a standard sized cubicle.

Ah, that was the bit I was missing! Although I'm not sure many of the loos Ive been in would have enough space for that either, especially once I've got a wheelchair in them. Possibly they should be designed to open outwards as standard?

Red cord is not much use if you are fitting or unconscious and thats assuming the cleaners haven't tied it up out of reach but that is a different rant.

It's a good question to discuss, @Gerri1992. I have learned a lot from @KeepToiletsSafe, bless her.

We recently had to think about and adapt our bathroom / toilet at home because I've had some weird medical episodes and consequently collapsed a few times.

These adaptions are primarily focused around (as pp have said):

1 Having a way to raise the alarm;

2 Making sure that I have a means of privacy while not making the door an absolute bastard to open;

3 Making sure that there are no sharp edges or other hazards that will cause me to fall or lacerate me if I do fall.

Alarm; Door Opening; Risk Eradication = ADORE. (Sorry, we are list people!)

@MyAutumnCrow Thank you. To satisfy Document T and M (in England) all non-domestic toilet doors should open outwards in an emergency because people fall against doors in the confined space. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have this safety requirement to be able to open the toilet door from the outside. All schools should have defibrillators in case of medical emergencies. Above are steps 2 and if necessary step 3 of a rescue.

Step 1 is to know someone has collapsed in the first place - that’s the bit I mainly campaign for. That’s the step you only get in a regulated non-domestic single sex toilet.

@Gerri1992 yes disabled (now called accessible) toilets are mixed sex. All mixed sex designs are private. The privacy still causes problems in disabled toilets because the occupant has to be conscious and able to reach the cord. Also, as you are probably aware, people often tie the cord up.

Here are some examples where you can see why I think more accessible toilets in the single sex toilet suites would be advantageous because they could have door gaps which may prevent misuse (drugs,sex) and lead to healthier (better ventilation, easily cleaning), and safer (supervision, prevention of misuse) toilets for non ambulant people.

A disabled man was left 6 hours on the floor when the cord broke:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjvnkzgr1no

This BBC article sums it up: “Disabled people's toilets are big, private and less likely to be occupied than regular-sized ones. As a result they are open to misuse by the general public. Most notoriously, they are sometimes occupied by drug users or people having sex”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22602836

And here’s an article, ironically about the BBC ‘disabled’ toilets, privacy+enough space = sex in a toilet (adding allegedly of course):
https://spectator.com/article/the-bbc-always-knew-that-russell-brand-was-a-lout/

And here’s another article about how many more pathogens are in unisex toilets, including accessible toilets, compared to single sex:
https://salus.global/article-show/pathogen-findings-raise-concerns-about-move-to-unisex-hospital-facilities

For some ambulant disabilities, such as for example epilepsy, it’s better to be in a single sex toilet with door gaps than an accessible toilet. Likewise, for some people who are not traditionally thought of as disabled, such as paruresis or Crohn’s disease, they may need the privacy of a disabled toilet. That’s why they are called ‘accessible’.

But overall, I believe that health and safety should override complete privacy. Anywhere that is private is a public area is open to abuse. As unisex/mixed sex toilets always have to be private, we should not be increasing them. If we are increasing accessible provision, it would be better if it were in a single sex environment.

Here is an article of the man helping design disabled toilets. There was a lot of opposition by businesses. Note his wife’s help in making sure women’s provision was also increased:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/31/selwyn-goldsmith-obituary

In 2008, the government did a large cross-party report on toilets. It was refreshing in its frankness about the problems of different designs, including the space and privacy of disabled toilets. At this point trans ideology wasn’t a thing so no talk of gender-neutral toilets.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmcomloc/636/636.pdf

They did say, even with the new clause in the Sexual Offences Act (2003) to make all sexual activity in toilets illegal, no one could stop sex in public toilets. Maybe it’s a question of out-of-sight out-of-mind (nah nothing we have to sort out in our toilets - only a bit of fun) but if designs are good for consensual sex they are good for non-consensual sex too. We need to design-out crime and funnily enough perpetrators aren’t that keen on witnesses.

Hope that helps @Gerri1992

The gaps are essential safeguarding bought in, in the late 70s early 80s I think? They should not be removed.
Also in the late 1980s there was a battle over whether to allow men to clean women's toilets - the sign put out was the compromise - it was supposed to be placed outside the entrance - today some toilets put up a permanent sign - so women may have to always be wary - the creep of men into women’s spaces.

I know of several incidences where female (and male) cleaners have been assaulted in toilets, so I think it’s good to have teams of cleaners where possible. It does make it expensive to maintain though.

Can I just say that you are awesome?

I honestly think you are. And thank you so much for educating me about this and that you continue to present so many facts, of which I had no idea.

Thank you xxx

I would love to have more than one disabled toilets in my workplace. For reasons of space, the one on my floor has been combined with the ladies so there is often a queue for it which is just terrible for anyone having bladder issues.
Seperate mens loo obviously.

Thanks for all the information! The links are really helpful.

In Portugal the red cord doesn't dangle from the ceiling but runs horizontally around the skirting board. It is retained by eyelets so can't be tied off.

Presumably if you've fallen you can reach it from anywhere in the cubicle. Whereas with the British dangling cord, it has to reach to the floor. Many are tied up "out of the way" of cleaners or users who might not appreciate why they should be at floor level. And if you fall as you leave the toilet you might not be able to crawl to the cord.

I'd be interested in your view @Keeptoiletssafe

That sounds so much more sensible.

Yes I think you’ve told me about that before - I think that’s really interesting. It also can’t be used as a ligature, which apparently is a situation that has happened in this country, according to another mumsnetter.

I suppose there’s the greater possibility it will get grotty but I think it’s worth looking at. There’s a charity called Euan’s Place that gives reminder cards out to attach to the cord to remind cleaners not to leave the cord tied up.

Gaps at the foot of toilet doors definitely predated the late 70s/80s @Toseland.We already had them in my senior school long before then - good solid wooden ones that probably went back to the 1930s assuming they weren’t original Edwardian.

As an ex smoker I can tell you that these gaps were often used by the teachers to find us and also that it’s possible to conceal four girls smoking in a cubicle if two stand on one leg and two balance on the rim of the toilet (yes, I was thinner in those days).

I can guarantee you that England has had at least one instance of an emergency cord pull being used as a ligature, because I helped break the door down. Thank god the kid survived.

@Keeptoiletssafe thank you for everything you do and for taking the time to share your knowledge so comprehensively x

I hope it makes a difference to people’s realisation that just adding more unisex designs as a panacea is not the way forward.

On alarms, I have never come across a situation where a woman or child was being attacked and they pulled an alarm in a toilet. Possibly they think it’s too dangerous or that they have not got the awareness or ability to trigger an alarm in that moment. I hate having to point that out but it’s necessary to do so.