Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Handicapped stalls in restrooms
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 8, 2011 at 7:20 pm #597884
maudeParticipantJust wondering (this isn’t meant as a slam to those who need to use the handicapped stalls). I was at an event last night and naturally there was a long line of women waiting for the restrooms. Everyone seemed to be avoiding the handicapped stall like it is only for wheelchairs or those who need assistance. I think it’s for people who need a bit more room but only after they wait in line like the rest of us. Is there a law that says those stalls are only for those needing assistance/extra room?
February 8, 2011 at 8:07 pm #716737
dhgParticipantI recall a Seinfeld episode built around this very subject. My understanding is that the handicapped stall is not exclusively for the handicapped but apparently some people seem to think it is analogous to a parking spot.
February 8, 2011 at 8:10 pm #716738
squareeyesParticipantI will take the next available stall/restroom regardless of whether it is standard or disabled-equipped, but if there is someone who is obviously in need of that stall, I’m going to let them go to the head of the line since it is technically reserved for them, and merely a convenience for me. So yes, disabled people get priority for the one stall designed for their use.
February 8, 2011 at 8:13 pm #716739
KatherineLParticipantI recall reading one woman’s experience. One of the difficulties with her particular handicap was bladder control. By the time she worked her way to the head of the line and waited for the handicapped stall to be free, she’d wet herself.
I use the handicapped stall if there doesn’t I don’t see anyone in special need of it. But I’d cede my place in line to anyone who looks handicapped.
February 8, 2011 at 8:19 pm #716740
West Seattle Art AttackMemberIf there is a law against it I think we should get the bathroom police to start writing tickets. . . . .They could have a course of sorts where they compete to write the most tickets. Start on Admiral hill and give a speeding ticket, move down to Alki and give a dog on the beach ticket, head to Lincoln Park for an offleash dog ticket, stop at the restroom for a handicapped stall use ticket and just to make it exciting head to a restaurant for a child off leash ticket. . . . .
February 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm #716741
metrognomeParticipantfirst, a little primer on language … refer to the person first and only refer to the disability (not handicap) if necessary. Don’t refer to people as their equipment; ‘wheelchairs’ don’t need to use the bathroom, ‘people in wheelchairs’ do. And, the stall isn’t ‘handicapped’ unless there is no toilet paper; it is ‘accessible’.
Maude, to answer your question, no, there is no law prohibiting someone who does not need the accessible stall from using it in the situation you described, just as there is no law preventing someone from using an elevator if they are capable of using the stairs. However, if someone who appears to need the accessible stall (i.e. on crutches, etc., not just using a wheelchair), that person should be given priority. Similarly, if you are on a packed elevator at a crowded event, you should consider getting off to make room for a wheelchair user or someone else with an obvious mobility disability, as the stairs are not an option for them. Just use common sense and treat people the way you would want to be treated. If you are unsure, ask quietly.
While there is not always agreement about terminology in the ‘disability community,’ here’s a guide that you may find useful:
February 8, 2011 at 9:14 pm #716742
DPMembermetrognome: I agree with you on language, but it might help to note that, as a person who used to write official government documents, you are likely to be more aware of this issue than the average person . . .
Also, while we’re on the topic . . . could I just ask able-bodied patrons of Southwest Library (pretty please) not to park in the “disabled parking” spot when you run in to drop off books?
A wheelchair-bound friend of mine told me she has often been denied access to the library by people using the space in that way.
OK, OK!
With sugar on it . . .
February 8, 2011 at 9:23 pm #716743
lucky chickMemberI once heard a mom explaining to her child that she should wait for a non-person-with-mobility-issue :) stall and not use the reserved stall in case someone who needed it came in. i thought that was so sweet. I now follow her advice as well.
February 8, 2011 at 9:24 pm #716744
metrognomeParticipant‘wheelchair-bound’ … DP, you’ve left me speechless.
So, I guess it’s ok if I use any number of epithets to refer to people of different races or ethnicities or genders since my gubmint writing only ejukated me about those poor handicapped folks. I bet if I used any of those terms out here, the tread would be deleted. Why are people with disabilities treated so differently?
February 8, 2011 at 10:09 pm #716745
argilesParticipantActually if you want to be politically correct the right term to use is a person with disability. How do I know this? My mother is the President of CCDI(Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities in IL.)
February 8, 2011 at 10:16 pm #716746
WSBKeymasterAs someone who used to and – hey! – still does write news, wheelchair-bound is a no-no. People aren’t “bound” to wheelchairs – the wheelchair may well give them mobility they wouldn’t have otherwise. They use wheelchairs, or are in wheelchairs, if it’s even relevant to the discussion at all. This has always been in the styleguides I’ve customized for newsrooms large and small. Also, the “the disabled” “the homeless” etc. terminology is bad too. At the very least – again, and only if relevant – it’s homeless PEOPLE, disabled PEOPLE, etc.
And it’s always a good idea to stop and think if using that description is accurate and/or relevant. If that’s the subject you’re writing about, sure. But if you are, oh say, in the urban core somewhere and you want to mention that you were hassled by somebody … and the phrase that springs to mind is “I was hassled by this homeless guy” – how do you KNOW he’s homeless? Just ’cause he’s perhaps scraggly looking? Lord, you should see ME sometimes …
Anyway, if you have never written for a living and/or for an audience of hundreds or thousands, you might not think of that. But consider that here you do have an audience of thousands. And it is worth stopping to think, now and then, regardless of whether you are writing here or a one-on-one note to someone.
P.S. This looks like an interesting ramble on the topic – have never heard of the source before so forgive me if wandering around it leads you to anything unexpected …
February 8, 2011 at 10:41 pm #716747
metrognomeParticipantargiles — i would refer to it as the respectful term.
TR – thanks for weighing in; I don’t know if you noticed that that website was from 1992. I believe the ‘Disability Rag’ was the predecessor to the Ragged Edge; DR was known for publishing very provacative pieces challenging society’s assumptions about persons with disabilities.
Unfortunately, most ‘journalists’ are no longer familiar with these language concepts and still use terms such as ‘wheelchair-bound’ or ‘the diabetic’. Headline editors are even worse; I’ve actually seen such things as, ‘Wheelchair Killed in Hit-and-Run.’ Sorting Google News by ‘wheelchair’ is an eye-opening experience.
Many years ago, when I still had hair and my beard was black instead of grey, I wrote an employee training brochure for Group Health titled, ‘A Person … First’ Hardly an original title, but the concept still applies. In fact, the WA legislature was one of the first to adopt ‘person first’ language a few years ago.
It’s a matter of being respectful and about challenging yourself to look at the (likely subconscious) assumptions you are making … just like you do for other groups of people.
February 8, 2011 at 11:00 pm #716748
argilesParticipantMetrognome
Well it is the politicaly correct term in IL, so it happens to be more then a respectful term. ( Yes, I know this WA)
Also growing up with a mother who is a person with a disability you happen to find these things out.
February 8, 2011 at 11:14 pm #716749
JustSarahParticipantTo add to what WSB already said, the same general rules apply to talking about someone with a psychological illness. One should never say, “a schizophrenic,” for example; the correct choice would be “a person with schizophrenia.” The point is to avoid saddling people with labels that describe them by just one aspect of their person.
Of course (as WSB also said), such descriptors should only be used when they are necessary and relevant.
February 8, 2011 at 11:58 pm #716750
DPMemberThe point is to avoid saddling people with labels that describe them by just one aspect of their person.
Agreed, and to this I must add that there is also a point at which we, as English speakers, must draw a line and say: No. I’m not going to cripple the language by loading it up with inapt and bulky terminology.
metrognome: If you can explain to me why “wheelchair-bound” is some kind of epithet that is not relevant or clear to the point I was making, I’m all ears. Which is not to say that I am constituted solely of ears, but I think you can infer what I meant by that term.
When we say a person is “home-bound” or “bed-bound” we obviously don’t mean that the person is literally chained to their home or bed. Ditto for wheelchair-bound. In context, it can be appropriate.
And if you can think of a smoother, better term I could have used in the particular sentence, please let me know what it is and we can debate it on the merits.
I’ll try to keep an open mind, which is not to say that I’ll be sawing a hole in my skull and . . .
(Oh forget it.)
February 9, 2011 at 12:39 am #716751
maudeParticipant:|
February 10, 2011 at 4:51 am #716752
maudeParticipantKatherineL, bladder control is a handicap? Because sometimes, after a few beers, I need to go right away. Little did I know I could just charge to the head of the line. Oh, but I suppose it needs to be some sort of documented condition.
Maybe we should just require people with handicaps (is that the right term? I’m sure I’ll hear about it if it isn’t) to hang handicapped placards from their necklaces so everyone in line knows who is authorized to use the um, roomy, stall. I’m going to suggest it to my legislator in the morning.
February 10, 2011 at 6:34 am #716753
JoBParticipantmaude..
the trouble with invisible disabilities is that they are invisible..
so people who make snap judgments about other people don’t think you have a disability…
the person with bladder control problems is the one with a small diaper bag in their hands…
not a beer.
btw.. i am going to assume you are making a joke about the necklaces..
but those of us authorized to use our own handicapped plates and placards to park do carry identification cards…
i have had to show mine more than once to someone who thought i wasn’t handicapped enough to use the handicapped spaces in spite of my handicapped plates :(
February 10, 2011 at 3:56 pm #716754
jissyParticipantFor safety reasons, I use the handicapped stalls only when with babies in the stroller but try to be quick about it.
February 10, 2011 at 4:11 pm #716755
maudeParticipantJoB, I know there are invisible disabilities. Cancer. Asthma. COPD. Etc. If someone needs to use the handicapped stall then I would defer to them. I’m not totally heartless. My question was: is it ok for me to use the blankety-blanking stall if nobody is making a run for it.
And since we do have plates and placards for parking spots (I do look for them – if you have one you are good to go; if not then we’ve got a problem) but nothing to indicate who can use the handicapped stalls then the stalls must be open to everyone.
And my point regarding bladder control problems was simply, why does that condition necessitate the use of the handicapped stall? Would that person wait for it to become available or would they take the next available stall?
February 10, 2011 at 5:09 pm #716756
yes2wsParticipantDHG said the following earlier in this thread.. “My understanding is that the handicapped stall is not exclusively for the handicapped but apparently some people seem to think it is analogous to a parking spot.”
My thoughts are that they’re somewhat analogous to a grocery store check-out lane designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. Other patrons are welcome (and even expected) to use this lane, but the design alone would make it the lane of choice for a person in need of the lowered counter. [Much like the over-sized restroom stall.]
February 10, 2011 at 5:46 pm #716757
JoBParticipantmaude..
bladder issues are often accompanied by serious pain… for some of us the most useful feature of the handicapped stalls are the grab rails…
also.. the handicapped stalls generally have a convenient place to stash the clean-up necessities… where they can be reached from a sitting position… I love the kid safety seats that appeared a few years ago.. and enough room to clean up and change if necessary.
there are some accidents a pad just doesn’t cover adequately :(
But to answer your question about whether it is ok to use that stall … it is certainly your right…
but even when there is a line..
you might want to think about how embarrassing it is for a person with an invisible disability to have to ask or display some kind of credentials to use that stall.
it’s humiliating enough to walk past the line while people make derogatory comments about cutting in line to get to the front where you can access the stall the next time it is available.
most of the time i wait in line and make use of the pad i wear if i have to unless i really won’t be able to get up unassisted because i work really hard not to make my disability the most important thing about me…
to me.. it’s one of those common courtesy things. The stalls aren’t there to provide privilege for a few. They are there because the it took a law to provide the kind of access and mobility assistance for those who need it.
in a better world.. all stalls would provide the same kind of amenities…
and anyone with urgency issues would be quickly passed to the front of the line with a smile.
February 10, 2011 at 6:27 pm #716758
maudeParticipantInstead of having placards or license plates on cars telling the world that the person in the vehicle is handicapped, it seems more discrete to have something like a chip implanted in the vehicle so the parking enforcement person can scan and issue a ticket or not. I understand people may harass those who have a right to park there at first. Seems to me that the plates/placards could set someone up to be a target.
My mother had a disability that was obvious to anyone watching her get out of the car and we were never glared at, that I know of. But I do know someone who was assaulted because he parked in the handicapped spot, with placard prominently displayed, because he didn’t look disabled.
I didn’t realize the full extent of bladder control issues. Didn’t know it could be painful so I’m sorry about making callous/insensitive remarks. My karma is already coming about every time I sneeze.
February 10, 2011 at 7:07 pm #716759
JoBParticipantmaude…
no problem… while urgency issues may have made have been brought to our attention by advertisements… they still aren’t considered a palatable subject for conversation so most people don’t have a clue.
my aunt (in her late 80s) stopped leaving the house the day she had to wear a pad and is still housebound… if i had done so i would have been housebound for the past 20 years ..
LOL… when my problem first surfaced i started checking out nursing homes because i honestly believed that incontinence was the prime indicator that it was time to remove yourself and your issues from your home.
I would have missed a lot of life.
for a long time i wore full length skirts exclusively because they concealed both the adult diapers i wore and evidence of any accident :(
some days saving the few seconds it took to unfasten and pull down pants was a real blessing :)
things are better now… but i still check out the location and access to public restrooms before i shop in any new store.
I am not sure how i would feel about a handicapped stall badge… I suppose it’s all in what you get used to.
as you may have guessed my disability is of the invisible type… and when i first got my handicapped plates i got harassed a lot. I still do.. i just don’t take it to heart any more… but i would have welcomed a microchip then.
Now i love my handicapped plates. People may bitch to themselves about the *@#* handicapped person who shouldn’t be on the streets.. but they do give me a wide berth when i am struggling to back out of a parking space. Those plates label me a dangerous woman :)
Come to think of it…
i might find a similar advantage in a restroom badge ;~)
February 10, 2011 at 7:22 pm #716760
SueParticipantmaude, FYI, a chip wouldn’t work in a car (unless it was in the placard itself), because the placards are issued to a person, not the car. I have one, and I can use it in any car that I’m a passenger/driver in – it is not relegated specifically to my own car.
As for the bathroom stalls, I need to use them, and rarely are they empty – they are always in use by someone else. And that’s always been fine by me. I expect that others will use it if it’s the only one left and no one else is waiting – I don’t find offense in that at all. What I don’t like is when people look at me, with my invisible disability, and assume that I do not qualify to use one. On a few occasions in different event venues, I’ve been grilled by security personnel who decided I didn’t have a need to use one (based on appearances), so I wasn’t allowed to. I had to make quite the fuss to be “given permission” to pass and use one. And both times I was in contact with management to teach these people a little bit of sensitivity training. It’s one thing to be reminded that they are for those with disablities, and then I don’t mind explaining that yes, I qualify for that. But to be “forbidden” to use the stall because some untrained person has a power trip? Not cool.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.