I've just been on the Twelth Floor of my wonderful tower building and I noticed something out of place. A disabled toilet!
Of course, you might not think that this is out of place at all. But then I remembered back to my univerisity fire training. Apparantly, if you are disabled University safety rules don't allow you higher up than floor 2 due to the difficulties that evacuation would entail in a building built before people thought about getting people who find it difficult to walk out of burning buildings.
The Tower Block is not equipped to evacuate in the case of an emergency any person who is immobile, has to use a wheelchair, or who is unable to evacuate the building unaided by means of the stairs at a normal rate. In the case of a fire, both lifts will be unusable. It is with regret that the School is unable to accept students, staff or visitors who are disabled in the way defined above since it is unable to ensure their safety. All possible steps will be taken to accommodate students or staff who become so disabled during their course or employment by making special arrangements for them.
So, why on Earth is there a disabled toilet on the twelfth floor?
I'm sort of awaiting an enslaught from my more politically correct readers of "just 'cause someone is disabled doesn't mean that they're less physically able". This is true. Hell, I'm soon to be getting DSA. However, to my mind, disabled toliets, are clearly designed for disabled people who are less physcially able! Otherwise, normal toilets without all the mobility assisting gadetary would be just as good!
Perhaps they have changed the rules about who is allowed up there since the introduction of the DDA last year? When did you receive your fire training?
Posted by: Owen on March 30, 2005 4:19 PMI did consider this.
However, the quote is taken from a current document (when I say current... I mean live without a replacement), not from the fire training documentation and I don't think the toilet is that new. It could be have been installed because of the DDA even though they know that it'd be silly to let wheelchair users up there and it'll never get any use!
Could the toilet not have been built and then the regulations implemented afterward and you've just not noticed it before?
Also you ma find that the stairwells are rated as sanctuary areas in case of fire with a fire resistance of at least 1hr, if not 2hrs, meaning it is feasible for the fire brigade to be called and then rescue the person before their unfortunate demise?
The debate continues!!!!
Posted by: Russ on March 30, 2005 6:10 PMCould be the building regulations require a certain number of disabled toilets anyway, so they had to stick an extra one somewhere.
Some of the regs can be extremely silly. We're in the planning stage for building a new office. As it's quite small, there will be only one toilet, which must therefore be disabled. All well and good. However, disabled toilets have to have low-level sinks. The greatest height for a 'disabled' sink is about 5cm lower than the lowest permissable height for a non-disabled sink. We have to design in two sinks :-)
In our small office, something like 20% of floor space is going to be used for disabled access.
Posted by: Joe on March 30, 2005 11:40 PMbet it's the cleaners' favourite toilet.
Posted by: Chris on March 31, 2005 12:02 AMWell... as for the stairwells being rated as refuges... I'm not terribly convinced. Mainly as I don't think there's room on them to put a refugee and to allow the rest of the building to be evactuated past them. And if that was the case, why not let people go higher earlier - they've not upgraded the firedoors whilst I've been here.
Ah, but the rest of the building wouldn't need to be evacuated past them if they're on the 12th floor....
Posted by: Mark on March 31, 2005 12:23 PMAh, but people on the 13th, 14th and 15th floors would need to be evacuated past them.
Posted by: Joe on March 31, 2005 2:19 PMYou are, of course, both assuming that the people with disabilities are all taking a dump/having a piss/being sick after a hangover when the fire alarm goes off.
So would you if you realised you were on the 12th floor of a towering inferno with no chance of escape!
Posted by: Mark on March 31, 2005 2:40 PMNo we're not, we're assuming they're on the 12th floor with it's convenient toilet, doing some engineering of the electronic kind.
Unless, of course, the evacuation route goes *through* the disabled toilet, but I think that's the wrong type of evacuation :-D
Posted by: Joe on March 31, 2005 7:35 PMI'm a little confused as to whether people think the toilet is the refuge or the stairwell. Obviously a stairwell can't be a refuge as it has too many doors onto it. The toilet on the other hand could be, although it might not be the nicest place.
Posted by: Chris on April 1, 2005 12:56 PMRight...
The stairwell is a refugee as by BS standards for all high rise buildings it must be for two reasons.
1) to evacuate any people on higher floors and provide a safe refuge for any disabled people within the building.
2) To allow fire fighters to access a fire further up the building and fight a fire that may have jumped floors.
With reference to the doorways, these should all be the irritating self closing kind that only seem to be there when you have both hands full. They should also only open into the stairwell as that would be the direction of evacuation.
Let the contradictions start!!!!
Posted by: Russ on April 1, 2005 6:57 PMSurely a 'disabled' toilet could be there for anyone with a disability, not only wheelchair/immobile people?
Or am I being a thicky?
Posted by: Cow on April 2, 2005 8:13 PMCow - if their disability does not include being in a wheelchair or otherwise immobile, then surely a normal toilet would suffice?
Posted by: Joe on April 4, 2005 12:17 AMYeah... you did read the 'small print' didn't you? :-)
Posted by: Ed on April 4, 2005 12:20 AMIt's still a little narrow minded of you ed! For example someone might have arthritic hands, and so can't turn a normal tap, and so special taps make the world of difference to them, but they are able bodied in every other way.
Now you could argue that every public toilet should use such taps etc. There's plenty of 'upgrades' that can be made to any toilet to make disabled peoples lives easier - shame you don't see them done very often!
I've always hated the idea of 'disabled toilets'. To my mind every public toliet should be able to be used by as many people as possible. 'Disabled toilets' should simply be for the mobility impared who need the extra space. It's simply penny pinching to only kit out 1 toilet with all the diabled gadgets etc.
Equally I object to the whole idea that 'it's a disabled toliet, you have to be disabled to use it'. A bog's a bog, if I have to que up to use one why shouldn't a disablled person? I'm all for equal opportunities and for making provisions for disabled people at every opportunity, but i'm dead against preferential treatment.
Sorry, felt like a rant ;oP
Posted by: Adam on April 4, 2005 11:36 AMOooh, good point about the arthritic hands, hand thought about the washing your hands part of going to the bog!