Was I wrong ?

Pennydragon there was no queue, I meant that if there had been a queue with a disabled person in it , then I certainly would not have used the disabled toilet. The person who made the comment was washing her hands when I came out of the cubicle. I am certainly not being dishonest

You were right to use it, on the basis of the fact that, like you said, there was no person with a disability waiting to use it. I've taken the same approach on several occasions but damn, on one occasion, I pulled the alarm cable, when I meant to 'pull' the chain. And let's face it, there are a lot of people around today who haven't had a good day, if they haven't found something to complain about.

I use the disabled loo if it's free as too many toilets have infant school loos, and I've nearly got stuck on occassion. Until recently I moved normally so no one would know that I have dodgy knees.

I use disabled loos quite a bit for a start the seats are higher and it's easier to get up.

First you say there was no queue, then you make us believe there was a queue ? (by saying - ( I certainly wouldn't have used it if a disabled person was behind me in the queue). Don't think your being completely honest about this. Think the lady was waiting in the queue and made that remark when she saw you coming out, was she disabled ?

I am so exasperated.
Is it not idiotic that an 'accessible ' toilet would stand empty while there was a queue of desperate people waiting for other cubicles to become vacant.

Of course someone who could only use an accessible cubicle would have priority.
Surely such a person would also understand the cubicle being used - desperate is desperate and becomes an emergency. I'm sure that a person with a disability would be willing to speak up with a ''' coming through.... Disabled cubicle please ..... or words to that effect.

I dont want to rush in front of an officially disabled person..... of course not. But lets minimize a queue where possible as long as noone is disadvantaged.

Some folk just look for something to complain about.

I have a bowel disability which isn't visible to people. I use disabled loos because it's not just about space in there.its also having the washbasin in case of accidents in my case.cant really clean myself up in front of everyone at the sinks!!!!! Some of the comments here I find very derogatory, though if you've not got a disability especially a hidden one like mine l don't suppose you'll understand.

Shops go to the expense because they realise that disabled people are their customers, just the same as everyone else.

I've used the gents - by mistake in fairness - but I survived. I have also used a disabled toilet when no other was available. I interpret the sign as meaning the toilet is accessible, not just for a section of the community.

Slightly different I know but on a holiday coach trip the men had been in and out of their toilets while the queue for the ladies had moved little. We decided, as a group, to commandeer the gents, no men were allowed in until the ladies were all comfortable. I'm not recommending it on a regular basis but it worked and did cause some laughter

In my view you were perfectly reasonable Mauriherb, put it out of your mind.

I can't see what the problem is in using the disabled accessible toilet if no other is available & you haven't queue jumped a disabled person. I have noticed in some venues the toilets are suitable for everyone & thankfully especially in hospitals. Perhaps there should be more of both types. On a slightly different note the toilet cubicles in our local hospital are so small that you have to be Houdini to get in & out.!!

You should have said Not all disabilities are visible. I see nothing wrong in using an empty toilet theye cannot stand empty for maybe a disabled person comes along

Well then Nelliemoser if you are in that much need why not say to people who have the decency to queue that you really need to be at the front and see what response you get? Shops etc do not go to the expense and trouble of providing facilities for those who are disabled so that people, who are perfectly able to use ordinary cubicles, can put themselves above and beyond the needs of others. That it is not illegal to use the facilities is like saying MPs who claim outrageous expenses are OK because they are ‘not breaking any rules’. There is a distinct lack of consideration for people with disabilities in this thread - it would be a good exercise for you all to ponder that for some people access to such facilities can mean the difference between being able to plan an outing or being housebound.

This discussion is getting silly there are too many whatifs going on here.

This discussion seems to have ignored the fact that if there is only one accessible toilet and another mobilty disabled person comes along they will still have to wait.

If say a person only has problems of urgency but does not actually need the mobility space required then the question of which toilet is used is not an issue. Unless as in many places the queue is a long one.

If they are desperate and there are no spare cubicles, there is nothing more you can do but explain your predicament to someone in the queue to see if they will allow you to jump the queue.

Theatre intervals can be dreadful.

The Queen mother is supposed to have once said "when you see a toilet use it."

This is a true story. We were on a coach tour of Italy. The coach pulled in at a service station for us to use the loo. The women rushed to the ladies but it was closed and the attendant told us to use the mens. So we all dashed in and used the cubicles. When we came out the men were using the urinals and were mortified as we walked past! We thought the attendant would have kept them out till we'd finished. It was even worse that we knew the men as they were from our coach. So embarrassing.

No, it's perfectly all right to use a disabled toilet if it's the only one available. There's a sign on the door of a loo at our local Tesco "Not all disabilities are visible" or some such. Pity it's the only loo that's reasonably clean. The Ladies has a seat missing, a loo paper holder ripped from the wall and the others stink. Therefore I think I'll be using the Disabled in future.

Mauriherb, you are not wrong! That woman was way out of line, because she had no way of knowing your needs and no right to question. Someone with a back or leg injury could also need the extra space or the higher than average loo.

'Disabled', simply means that the space meets the height and width requirements for people who use special needs equipment (walkers, canes, wheelchairs) or need to avail themselves of extra support when they sit, using the special handlebars on the walls.

The common courtesy is not to use it ahead of disabled persons whether they are wheelchair bound or otherwise, and to assume good faith if someone doesn't 'look' disabled.

If the 'Disabled' stall happens to be unoccupied and no other stall is available, anyone can use it.

Absolutely not, I do it a lot if the time plus there’s more space and mostly always plenty of everything you might need! Don’t feel guilty...unless of course there is a disabled person around waiting

Not at all the same as parking for blue badge holders. Disability is not always visible so don't feel guilty. Let commonsence prevail for goodness sake!

Surely a weak bladder can be counted as a disability? Disabilities don't have to be major to be disabling in significant ways.

I use so-called disabled loos sometimes too. I used one the other day. I was looking for a 'Ladies', couldn't find one but did find a disabled loo. So I used it.

I use 'Gents' as well sometimes. Not when there is a row of urinals but when there is a gents' loo that is exactly the same as a nearby ladies' one, nobody is using it and there's a queue for the Ladies.

Nobody has ever commented except to say "Good idea!" and if anyone has looked disapproving I haven't noticed.

Exactly dorsetpennt
And in fact, even if somebody is in a wheelchair, they may not be ‘desperate’ to go, whereas somebody with a very weak bladder but not physically disabled would have a greater need.
The wider and larger toilet is there to accommodate wheelchair users or anyone else with disabilities, but is not only for them, so if nobody there needs it, why not use it?

LOL Charleygirl I did the same thing by mistake only wasn't so lucky. I was washing my hands and a Man walked in. I gave him a glare and he said "Don't look at me like that Madam this is the Male toilets" One very red face

I often used a disabled loo as long as someone disabled isn't waiting to use it. The sign is to indicate that the facilities are suitable for disabled people, not to indicate that non-disabled can't used it. I've said as much to the odd person who has muttered something regarding this.

There may not be a disabled person around at the time you go in but what if someone disabled ( either visibly or not) just after you’ve gone in and they don’t have the possibility of using a normal cubicle or there’s a long queue. I’ve waited a longish time outside of a disabled loo ( when the others were up a flight of stairs) only for giggling young women to come out or a woman and child

Of course you weren't wrong to use it! I would have done the same. Just because you don't look disabled doesn't mean you're not. I have a compressed disc in my spine and find it difficult to use the smaller cubicles sometimes, so I use the disabled ones. Luckygirl, I think your comment in telling the disgruntled person what to do was most appropriate in the circumstances!! It made me laugh!