If someone is in a wheelchair it’s pretty obvious they need the WABS (Well, not always - some people who use wheelchairs are capable of walking briefly without one and may be able to use a regular stall, but let’s not get sidetracked).
Someone who is able to use a regular stall, which includes many disabled people, may also have incontinence issues, but such people, first of all, aren’t limited to the WABS stall. Second, if they aren’t visibly/obviously disabled they’ll need to speak up if they’re about to have an underwear emergency.
All we (those who depend on the availablitly of the accessible stalls) “desire” is the right to the same access to public restroom facilities as our able-bodied counterparts. When someone “desires” convenience and selects the accessible stall over the regular stall, that right is taken away. It’s not about the length of the wait, it’s about the fact that the wait is occuring in the first place. It’s not a wait borne out of necessity; rather it’s one borne out of selfishness and apathy. It’s about basic human equality. So please know, you are in fact committing a wrong each and every time you choose to use the handicap-accessible stall when a non-accessible toilet is available.
I use the handicapped stalls because 1) I like the room, 2) I’m claustrophobic, 3) I’m mega-obese, and can’t even close the door in the regular stalls without standing on the toilet.
Like was already said in the other thread you resurrected on this subject your expecting reserved service for when ever you show up. Not equal access. There are places with all stalls that are only handicap accessible too. The stalls are not reserved, they are just made more accessible like the stores that paved over the steps with a ramp that we now have to walk up instead.
No, what he’s saying is that when an able bodied person chooses the handicapped stall over a regular stall, the able bodied person is choosing his convenience over someone else’s need. When an able bodied person takes the handicapped stall, and another able bodied person comes into the restroom, that second able bodied person is able to use any of the regular stalls that are still available. However, someone who needs the handicapped stall cannot use the regular stalls, so has no stall available.
I much prefer the regular stalls over the handicapped ones. The seat in the handicapped ones is always too high (and I’m 5’10", so it’s not like I’m short or anything). Also, I like the smaller space of the regular stalls, because it’s less territory that I have to defend against intruders.
In my workplace there just aren’t any claustrophobic zombies with strollers and a broken arms. We got rid of them sometime in 2010. So handicapped stalls are open game. The 0.05% of the time there might be such a visitor in no way justifies leaving all of the many handicapped stalls unused.
I used to use them at least occasionally. As I got older and my hip deteriorated, I found I really needed them (mostly because of the grab bars and the added height of the toilet). That experience made me realize that it was not always apparent when someone needed to use it. If a wheelchair rolls into the bathroom, you know it, but there are a host of other, less apparent reasons that a person might need it. Last year I got my hip replaced and once I healed, I never used one again. I would use it if I were desperate, but that has not happened.
The people who say “no one in my office is disabled” are likely mistaken.