Why do people object to paying for public toilets, car parks etc.?

[py_megapixel]

I do not understand why there are so many people who describe payment for toilets as a pointless ripoff.

In the UK, where it is uncommon to pay for toilets, they are usually outdated, poorly maintained and infrequently cleaned.
In Germany, Belgium, France and presumably other European countries, where pay-toilets are typical, they tend to be clean and pleasant to use.
If you go to the toilet at home or in a café/shop, you are still paying for the toilets, either through the need to purchase toilet roll, soap etc., or through the cost of the goods from the business.
Those with medical conditions requiring them quick/frequent access to toilets should be given RADAR keys to allow them access to the accessible toilets, which tend not to be charged for.

The same attitude exists towards paying for parking. People ask why owning a car does not give them free access to a piece of land to put it on. The upkeep of the land costs money.
There are other examples of this kind of thing. For instance, buying a speaker does not give me free access to music to play on it.

Yes, some disability sufferers require a car, but parking could be free for disabled badge holders but paid-for for others.

I would be interested to hear other users' opinions on this matter.

 

[ashkeba]

I think those two are very different situations. Toilets are a pretty basic need and I do not mind the cost of that being shared widely. Storing a car somewhere other than land you control is a choice and so renting someone else's land or public land for a short time seems fair enough. So I don't mind paying for parking but I do object to paying individually for peepee! It is a bit of a disgrace that Network Rail has only recently committed to not charging any more.

Also I think paying for a toilet in Belgium or France is dying out unless it is one of those self-cleaning toilets in a big city. In small towns, even the self-cleaning ones have been free sometimes recently.

 

[yorksrob]

If I pay for toilets, I find I have an unrealistic expectation of the service provided.

When the facility at Leeds City station charged 30 (later 40)p, I objected to the fact that they still only had 3 cubicles, and when waiting to use them, I had to hang around by the urinals.

If paying, I expect lots of cubicles, all in use.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I'm reminded of the time when I had cause to use Hull Paragon's loos. Not the present location; the previous one. This was under TPE management.
20p entry fee. Worst stench I can recall, no soap, no hot water. And a complaint to the "attendant" was met with "nothing to do with me - I'm not the cleaner".

Pay and get conditions close to those at home (or in a Wetherspoon pub, even) or your money back - or pay nowt and get the same, but with some forgiveness if it isn't quite up to scratch.

 

[IanD]

Public toilets and parking often used to be provided by the local authority so people see a charge as having to pay twice for the same thing. I have to pay the local authority to park on the street outside my home, yet I also have to pay if I use any of their car parks even though at that time the space outside my house is free for someone else to pay to use. To me that feels like I am paying three times - council tax, parking permit and car park.

Not to mention vehicle excise duty.

 

[edwin_m]

Historically these activities have usually been free so people tend to resent having to pay for them.

 

[py_megapixel]

I'm reminded of the time when I had cause to use Hull Paragon's loos. Not the present location; the previous one. This was under TPE management.
20p entry fee. Worst stench I can recall, no soap, no hot water. And a complaint to the "attendant" was met with "nothing to do with me - I'm not the cleaner".

Pay and get conditions close to those at home (or in a Wetherspoon pub, even) or your money back - or pay nowt and get the same, but with some forgiveness if it isn't quite up to scratch.

I forgot about the eventuality that you pay for toilets which are poor anyway. I'm still in favour of charging for toilets if this means that they are cleaned regularly. If they are going to be horribIe, I couldn't care less what they charge - I will buy something from the nearest café and use their toilets instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I will buy something from the nearest café and use their toilets instead.

Some cafes really object to people doing that (I got properly berated at the bar at a pub a while back for asking honestly and politely "what would you like me to buy so I can use your toilets?"). I've never understood why - why not just charge a quid for toilet use for non-customers? I'd pay.

 

[James H]

Some cafes really object to people doing that (I got properly berated at the bar at a pub a while back for asking honestly and politely "what would you like me to buy so I can use your toilets?"). I've never understood why - why not just charge a quid for toilet use for non-customers? I'd pay.

One pub in a fairly busy area near me has a sign saying that toilets are for customers' use only, but non-customers can use them in exchange for a small donation to the pub's nominated charity, which seems a fair arrangement.

There should be more community toilet schemes, where councils pay venues a subsidy for loo roll and cleaning costs in exchange for unfettered public access to the loos.

 

[py_megapixel]

I've never understood why - why not just charge a quid for toilet use for non-customers? I'd pay.

I have seen this policy in the UK. If you're eating here, go for free. If not, put 30p in the box.
Most chain coffee shops don't seem to care about people using their toilets, even without paying. The staff don't really have an incentive to stop people from doing that, because it's unlikely that they are given anything for stopping people from using the loo (or not), unlike refusing to serve coffee, where they would be disciplined somehow!
Independent establishments can be more fussy however.

 

[Calthrop]

A friend of mine totally refuses on principle ever to pay, in any way or shape, for parking; or for relieving himself. His view on the "parking" matter is, "I pay my road tax so that I can travel from place to place; not so that I can stop and not travel". Most people who know this chap -- myself included -- do regard him as pathologically mean about almost all of life's activities.

 

[py_megapixel]

His view on the "parking" matter is, "I pay my road tax so that I can travel from place to place; not so that I can stop and not travel".

So by that logic, when he's stopped (i.e. in a carpark) it's reasonable to pay???

 

[bussnapperwm]

Working in the industry, I am in favour of charging for council car parks and parking on street.

Remember that any surplus money that is made from parking charges and parking enforcement goes towards things such as traffic calming measures outside schools/hospitals, improvements to roads (such as new road schemes), and maintaining the existing road network.

 

[anme]

Public toilets and parking often used to be provided by the local authority so people see a charge as having to pay twice for the same thing. I have to pay the local authority to park on the street outside my home, yet I also have to pay if I use any of their car parks even though at that time the space outside my house is free for someone else to pay to use. To me that feels like I am paying three times - council tax, parking permit and car park.

Not to mention vehicle excise duty.

But think of enormous damage your car does to those around you, and the waste of public space that it takes up. Surely you should pay much much more for your car, not less.

 

[underbank]

Public toilets and parking often used to be provided by the local authority so people see a charge as having to pay twice for the same thing.

For older generations, paying rates (now council tax) was for local facilities, such as street cleaning, refuse collection, parks, public toilets, car parks, etc.

Over the years, local councils have had lots of other obligations thrust upon them, many of which aren't really of direct benefit to the rate/council tax payers, and over that time, the local facilities have been first on the list when cuts have been required.

There's been a huge shift as to what local ratepayers are actually paying for and these days, more and more of them are questioning what benefit they receive.

 

[Harpers Tate]

If we assume that
- most people have access to a car,
- and most will prefer to use it for one reason or another,
- and no government has the will to spend on encouraging modal shift by subsidy and/or penal taxes on motoring
If such people are going shopping or eating out etc., will they choose to
a) visit a local town centre, where parking and toilets are chargeable (even if fairly nominal) or
b) visit the nearby mall where parking and toilets are both plentiful and free to use
which do you suppose they will choose?
Why are town centres dying? Is it the internet to blame?

 

[anme]

Over the years, local councils have had lots of other obligations thrust upon them, many of which aren't really of direct benefit to the rate/council tax payers, and over that time, the local facilities have been first on the list when cuts have been required.

What are these obligations, and how else should they be paid for?

 

[anme]

If we assume that
- most people have access to a car,
- and most will prefer to use it for one reason or another,
- and no government has the will to spend on encouraging modal shift by subsidy and/or penal taxes on motoring
If such people are going shopping or eating out etc., will they choose to
a) visit a local town centre, where parking and toilets are chargeable (even if fairly nominal) or
b) visit the nearby mall where parking and toilets are both plentiful and free to use
which do you suppose they will choose?
Why are town centres dying? Is it the internet to blame?

Surely they will choose the town centre, because malls (if they even exist in the UK) are depressing hellholes which are just massive car parks around a few chain restaurants.

Also we will use planning regulations to prevent the building of "malls".

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW I find it far more off-putting when parking to have to faff about getting change and guessing how long I'll be than I do about actually paying. The RingGo app used by MK Council deals with this reasonably, though overall pay on exit by card is best.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely they will choose the town centre, because malls (if they even exist in the UK) are depressing hellholes which are just massive car parks around a few chain restaurants.

Where are you located? It sounds like you aren't very familiar with the UK. Out of town shopping centres / "strip malls" (we don't call them that, but they are basically the same as the US ones) are VERY common.

People choose them simply because of free and easy parking. Other aspects are of little importance comparatively provided you can buy what you want.

 

[underbank]

Surely they will choose the town centre

No, I would choose a retail park or out of town mall every time over a typical town centre.

Local councils have killed town centres with their "anti car" philosophy of traffic calming, inconvenient/expensive parking, empty bus lanes, congested one way systems, etc.

I only go into town centres when I absolutely have to which luckily is now very rare indeed and usually just once a year to go to the dentist/optician. I do all my shopping either at retail parks or out of town malls or online. Town centre shops are pretty dire - often small and crowded and usually with very poor range of stock.

A combination of car hating councils and awful chain shops have ruined town centres.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A combination of car hating councils and awful chain shops have ruined town centres.

Coupled with the abjectly poor standard of bus service operation in the UK. If everything was operated to a German level of precision (though they don't go for niceties), or it had the niceties that you tend to get with bus companies Alex Hornby has had a hand in, there might be less objection to actually using them.

 

[IanD]

But think of enormous damage your car does to those around you, and the waste of public space that it takes up. Surely you should pay much much more for your car, not less.

My car has damaged no-one. On the other hand my car has been damaged on numerous occasions by others. If you read my post, I've already stated that I am paying much more for my car.

Surely they will choose the town centre, because malls (if they even exist in the UK) are depressing hellholes which are just massive car parks around a few chain restaurants.

Also we will use planning regulations to prevent the building of "malls".

Still living on another planet I see.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My car has damaged no-one

Your car (coupled with all the others) causes severe damage to the planet every time it is started, in terms of carbon and particulate emissions. Even if it's electric, the UK doesn't have 100% renewable electricity (yet; once it does that argument will shift a bit).

 

[underbank]

Coupled with the abjectly poor standard of bus service operation in the UK. If everything was operated to a German level of precision (though they don't go for niceties), or it had the niceties that you tend to get with bus companies Alex Hornby has had a hand in, there might be less objection to actually using them.

For me, it's not actually having a convenient bus service rather than the quality. It takes my son 2 hours to get to school in a morning and that's just a 5 mile journey into the city centre. Whilst there are buses every 5 minutes along some routes, other routes get one bus per hour during peak times and are stupidly full. The buses are absolutely brilliant if you live/work on particular corridors, but woeful if you don't. It seems that someone planned out the routes decades ago and they havn't been updated to account for new developments. If you are, say, retired, and have all the time in the world, then you're fine, but if you have somewhere to go, for a specified time, i.e. school or work, you basically have to go by car. My son did work experience over Summer in a city centre office and still spent 2 hours getting there. The later bus doesn't get into the city bus station until 9.05 which is too late for schools/offices - the earlier bus gets there for 8.05 which is too early! He had the opportunity of paid Summer work in another office but it was in an out of town business park which has been there for over a decade but still doesn't have a single bus route near it, so he couldn't accept that place. Outside London and some other major cities, public transport isn't fit for purpose and until that's dealt with, there'll be no reduction in private car use.

 

[DarloRich]

When the facility at Leeds City station charged 30 (later 40)p, I objected to the fact that they still only had 3 cubicles, and when waiting to use them, I had to hang around by the urinals.

If paying, I expect lots of cubicles, all in use.

yes. because your 40p will magic up more space to build toilets wont it? The charge at stations is to keep the riff raff and junkies out. I would rather not have to drop a load at the same time someone shoots up.

Public toilets and parking often used to be provided by the local authority so people see a charge as having to pay twice for the same thing. I have to pay the local authority to park on the street outside my home, yet I also have to pay if I use any of their car parks even though at that time the space outside my house is free for someone else to pay to use. To me that feels like I am paying three times - council tax, parking permit and car park.

Not to mention vehicle excise duty.

Sell your car then. I did. it is liberating. BTW We have to pay for a parking permit so that we/ visitors can park but it means we have at least a chance of a space. The worst part is the bloody web site!

Over the years, local councils have had lots of other obligations thrust upon them,

that is the bottom line. That and central government funding cuts.

 

[yorksrob]

yes. because your 40p will magic up more space to build toilets wont it? The charge at stations is to keep the riff raff and junkies out. I would rather not have to drop a load at the same time someone shoots up.



Sell your car then. I did. it is liberating. BTW We have to pay for a parking permit so that we/ visitors can park but it means we have at least a chance of a space. The worst part is the bloody web site!



that is the bottom line. That and central government funding cuts.

Er, I think you'll find that 40p charging over a few years could buy a lot of extra space (I've often thought that taking over part of the first floor of the office block might have been worth considering).

Alternatively, just don't have the audacity to charge 40p for a 3 cubicle loo in the first place (which is the route NR have now admirably taken).

 

[DarloRich]

Er, I think you'll find that 40p charging over a few years could buy a lot of extra space (I've often thought that taking over part of the first floor of the office block might have been worth considering).

Alternatively, just don't have the audacity to charge 40p for a 3 cubicle loo in the first place (which is the route NR have now admirably taken).

right. prime office space in Leeds city centre. on 40p's?

BTW those toilets are now pretty grotty.

 

[yorksrob]

right. prime office space in Leeds city centre. on 40p's?

BTW those toilets are now pretty grotty.

Well, they had the signal box in there until a few years ago.

Those loos were probably more lucrative than some of the shops on the station.

FYI, they have just given those loos a welcome facelift, although still 3 cubicles.

 

[DarloRich]

Well, they had the signal box in there until a few years ago.

Those loos were probably more lucrative than some of the shops on the station.

FYI, they have just given those loos a welcome facelift, although still 3 cubicles.

i was thinking of the platform side ones.