Handicapped Stall:One Handicap trumps another?

[DistantStar]

I'm not going to excuse the rudeness of some folks, but I do understand their frustration -- if there are six stalls and you can only use one and that just barely and that one is being used by somebody for something that could be done elsewhere, it'd be completely irritating.  I do blame the people who put changing tables in those stalls; it's completely unfair to the people who can't use another stall and a diaper change is not always quick.  If you had to plan where and how to use the bathroom everywhere you went it'd get pretty tiresome pretty quickly.  We're talking basic biological needs, this isn't something optional.

I don't think it's fair for non-disabled people to use those stalls for anything that will take any length of time; there's nothing wrong with using it for an intended purpose, but I wouldn't tie one up for more than a certain quick function.

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

A bit of a tangent, here. Not trying to hijack the thread; but I'm not sure my question warrants a separate one (please move it if need be).

Just wondering- why are the handicap stalls so commonly located in the very back of the restroom? Wouldn't it be more convenient and practical for them to be up front?

[DottyG]

Whisky,

The answer to that goes back to what I mentioned earlier.  It's because the builders have never actually spent time (generally speaking) in a wheelchair or in a state in which they need that stall.  They have no clue what would actually be the most useful for someone.

I looked up the ADA rules, and there is nothing in there that requires it to be in the back.

That said, also see my earlier post about having to leave the door open more than once myself.  I have to admit that, in those times, I was glad that the stall was as far away from the main door as possible.

[rashea]

Just wondering- why are the handicap stalls so commonly located in the very back of the restroom? Wouldn't it be more convenient and practical for them to be up front?

I think because it's easier to set handrails into solid walls.

But man, it can be a pain to maneuver into those stalls.

[Outdoor Girl]

If I go into a washroom and I'm the only one in there, I will often use the HC stall because I'm a larger woman and it is more comfortable for me.  But I don't have to use it.

If I'm in a line-up and the HC stall is the next one available when it is my turn, I use it unless there is someone who is either obviously HC or who speaks up and asks if they can go ahead in line close behind me.

[CaptainObvious]

Whisky,

The answer to that goes back to what I mentioned earlier.  It's because the builders have never actually spent time (generally speaking) in a wheelchair or in a state in which they need that stall.  They have no clue what would actually be the most useful for someone.

I looked up the ADA rules, and there is nothing in there that requires it to be in the back.

That said, also see my earlier post about having to leave the door open more than once myself.  I have to admit that, in those times, I was glad that the stall was as far away from the main door as possible.

Most buildings are older, and they adapted their existing restrooms to meet the requirements of the ADA. They put them in the back in order to anchor the rails into the wall. The railings must meet a certain criteria and the partitions cannot withstand the required weight. They cannot build a special wall in the front just for a handrail. And every handicap stall is required to meet the size set by the ADA. If this isn't adequate, then the ADA is the one who needs to be notified.

The back wall is usually the best possible area due to the fact that handicap stall would block the aisle. They must have so much space in front of the toilet so it has to be longer. They are not going to design a bathroom with 5 extra feet of space in order to have a front HC stall,  it wouldn't be cost effective.

And the builers don't have anything to do with the design of the building, that is the set by the owner or the architect.

[DottyG]

And the builers don't have anything to do with the design of the building, that is the set by the owner or the architect.

I used the word "builder" as a general term for all 3.  See my earlier post where I did specify architect as well.  Plus, "builder" and "architect" are often interchangeable in my mind, because ours for our house was both.  Made it really convenient to make changes along the way.  I realize that others don't have that same association, but sometimes I lapse.

[perpetua]

I'm not going to excuse the rudeness of some folks, but I do understand their frustration -- if there are six stalls and you can only use one and that just barely and that one is being used by somebody for something that could be done elsewhere, it'd be completely irritating.  I do blame the people who put changing tables in those stalls; it's completely unfair to the people who can't use another stall and a diaper change is not always quick.  If you had to plan where and how to use the bathroom everywhere you went it'd get pretty tiresome pretty quickly.  We're talking basic biological needs, this isn't something optional.

I don't think it's fair for non-disabled people to use those stalls for anything that will take any length of time; there's nothing wrong with using it for an intended purpose, but I wouldn't tie one up for more than a certain quick function.

This.

I think much of this falls under the heading of "just because you *can*, doesn't mean you *should*".

[WillyNilly]

Just wondering- why are the handicap stalls so commonly located in the very back of the restroom? Wouldn't it be more convenient and practical for them to be up front?

I always assumed because its the most logical place.   Often restrooms are set up with a few stalls along one wall and the aisle to get to them is the opposite wall, then the handicapped stall taking up the whole back end (spanning both walls) like this: http://www.crcconstruction.com/projects/retail-c3/shopko-restrooms-utah-and-idaho-p323

If the handicapped stall came first it would be very awkward to arrange the room and would probably cut down on the total number of stalls that can fit.

Also, as frustrating as it must be to people in wheel chairs or on crutches, etc the reality is they are the minority in society.  Heck I would say I see a person in a wheelchair at most once a week, usually far less often, and I see hundreds if not thousands of people over the course of a week.  And I work in a Dr's office, so I probably see more then most people.  I have gone years without seeing anyone in a wheelchair at certain points in my life.  And I've lived in NYC - one of the most densely populated cities - my whole life. Most people are able bodied.  So it does make sense to accommodate the handicapped, but design for the majority.

[TurtleDove]

Most people are able bodied.  So it does make sense to accommodate the handicapped, but design for the majority.

Bingo!

[Docslady21]

If I go into a washroom and I'm the only one in there, I will often use the HC stall because I'm a larger woman and it is more comfortable for me.  But I don't have to use it.

If I'm in a line-up and the HC stall is the next one available when it is my turn, I use it unless there is someone who is either obviously HC or who speaks up and asks if they can go ahead in line close behind me.

I weight lift. If I do a particularly long set and I'm sore the next day, I need the handrails. I learned that the hard way when my quads gave out one day as I was sitting down and I instead fell between the wall and the toilet--and I couldn't even get up because that would require flexing those betraying quads and there were no rails to pull up on. Hilarious, but embarrassing--and unsanitary to use the toilet as a lifting mechanism.

And to anyone around I look fine, walk fine, etc. But holy moly, flexing those muscles . . .

[DistantStar]

I don't think "they're the minority" should apply to bathrooms.  Everybody should be able to use a bathroom!  I understand space limitations, older buildings, and the like, but that doesn't mean that newer buildings can't be better designed.  "The handicapped" aren't some mysterious others; it could be you at some point in your life!  Or somebody in your family, or a friend.  Anybody.

Playing "I need the stall more than you do" when you both need it?  Ridiculously rude.

[snowdragon]

Most people are able bodied.  So it does make sense to accommodate the handicapped, but design for the majority.

Bingo!

As obnoxious as this woman was - putting in all handicapped stalls in new buildings would solve a lot of issues - for one it would make more places available to the disabled and it would mean that everyone could use them with out worrying about displacing someone...the handicapped stalls are accessible to most people ( i know some folks who need lower, rather than higher seats.) and if you have all handicapped stalls there will be no arguments about who goes first because "that's the only one I can use" type stuff. If you design to make more stalls handicapped accessible - you are designing for the majority, really.

[TurtleDove]

As obnoxious as this woman was - putting in all handicapped stalls in new buildings would solve a lot of issues - for one it would make more places available to the disabled and it would mean that everyone could use them with out worrying about displacing someone...the handicapped stalls are accessible to most people ( i know some folks who need lower, rather than higher seats.) and if you have all handicapped stalls there will be no arguments about who goes first because "that's the only one I can use" type stuff. If you design to make more stalls handicapped accessible - you are designing for the majority, really.

Well, this is sortof the argument about airplane seating.  The bigger the stalls, the fewer the stalls, the more people waiting longer.  I don't think anyone was saying that there should be no handicapped stalls.  I do think some of us are saying that being handicapped does not entitle a person to never having to wait for a turn.

[snowdragon]

As obnoxious as this woman was - putting in all handicapped stalls in new buildings would solve a lot of issues - for one it would make more places available to the disabled and it would mean that everyone could use them with out worrying about displacing someone...the handicapped stalls are accessible to most people ( i know some folks who need lower, rather than higher seats.) and if you have all handicapped stalls there will be no arguments about who goes first because "that's the only one I can use" type stuff. If you design to make more stalls handicapped accessible - you are designing for the majority, really.

Well, this is sortof the argument about airplane seating.  The bigger the stalls, the fewer the stalls, the more people waiting longer.  I don't think anyone was saying that there should be no handicapped stalls.  I do think some of us are saying that being handicapped does not entitle a person to never having to wait for a turn.

and I agree! but I think that even if we have fewer stalls, it would be worth it to have more ( or only handicapped stalls)  just my feelings on it.