When you were done, you'd leave through the door, which would lock behind you, and then for a minute or two, it would go through a self-cleaning cycle, making itself (putatively) spotless for the next customer.
They even had the same idea scaled up to entire motels. Near Lyon, I needed to catch 3 hours of zzz's before going to the airport. I found a motel called "Formule 1". It was a seemingly automated motel. You hardly ever saw an employee.
To park your car, you slid your credit card through a card reader at the parking lot gate, and it charged you $20 or so. You would be given a receipt with a combination number for the front door and for your room.
The bathrooms were down the hall from your room. They were somewhat similar to the fancy porto-poties. Though they also had showers in them. The shower was on a timer. When you left the bathroom, the door would lock behind you for a while, as it would go through its cleaning cycle.
France is strange!
The toilets where one could go for a large delivery required a coin (IIRC 20 French Franc), and were on a timer. So as a child I was pressured to do my duty swiftly. While I was doing my duty, the door unlocked, because my time was apparently up. I found this very intimidating to my privacy, and it increased the stress I already had to quickly do my duty. I'm not sure if I did finish or not, but I do remember feeling very upset, and I also found the system ridiculous. Especially given nobody was waiting for me to finish my turn, and the toilets weren't clean either because the place smelled horrendous.
Nowadays, if I pay for a toilet, I want it to be clean. (Although as a man at least peeing is already free if you really have to. Without the need for additional tools.)
I did read a story on HN about German cities providing free (formerly paid) toilets. This increases happiness of tourists, increasing the chance tourists come (back) to these cities. The money is paid for by the local businesses. But this increases their profits because they sell more due to more/happier tourists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_to_End_Pay_Toilets_i...
Pay toilets seem like a very reasonable solution (although they installed some in NYC relatively recently with pretty poor results due to camped out homeless people and drug users).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/train-statio...
And, in fact, this tallies with my own experience: I've been through Paddington and Liverpool Street hundreds of times and have only used the toilets on a handful of occasions, usually with moderate cursing at having to find the appropriate change. And they never seem particularly busy.
[1] https://www.networkrail.co.uk/FootfallBreakdownForEachStatio... (not sure of the year)
I guess many people have just got off a train, or are about to get on a train, and so made other arrangements.
As a matter of course- because really the issue of pay toilets is just one small protuberance from the much larger social problem, which is that currently society doesn't provide remotely appropriate care for a large segment of the mentally ill. That a tourist taking a piss in Manhattan entails thorny socioethical issues is surprising yet direct result.
The same problem repeats itself all over urban life. It's why the bus stop shelter doesn't keep you dry, why park benches are uncomfortable, and why you're likely to hear an ambulance siren at least once in an ordinary day. Someday society will realize that the underlying problem isn't a necessary truth, and everything will suddenly seem so much nicer.
http://toilet-guru.com/pictures/amsterdam-street-dscf3952-tn...
But generally, in Europe, there are about zero free public toilets and just a few public pay ones.
Sure, in theory there could be wonderful tax-funded public toilets everywhere, but it's a hard sell to taxpayers: most of the time, locals aren't the ones getting caught in need of a bathroom. (I mean, how many times in your typical day do you use a public toilet? Probably not often; it's a thing you use when traveling, or as a tourist in a different city.) And thus they're understandably reluctant to divert tax money to pay for them, and they get to make the call.
A) They have to wait 5 minutes (pointlessly) plus the duration of the next person's stay. B) They pay to bump the person behind in the queue.
Both scenarios are bad. In A, the toilet is not being used to its effective capacity. In B, paying customers can prevent non-paying customers from ever getting to use the toilet.
Toilets should be provided for free to customers by private businesses, and to the general public by cities. The alternative is alleys reeking of urine and feces. Toilets: a worthwhile public expense.
So if a toilet needs a queue, then the first in-first out method should be used to prevent someone from bumping the queue and prevent over excessive wait times for someone who can't pay.
Also if they want to pay for the toilet, they can always pay for who is in front of them.
To enforce such rules is always a problem, but so are all rules in our society.
But I think the face pictures could be used in some kind of public shaming for people to treat the bathroom nicely.
.. or when you don't have the change for a paid toilet and you really really have to do it
I had no idea this was even a thing. Doesn't seem justifiable to me, it just seems cruel.
I love pay toilets. Most of them are kept clean, and I don't consider finding a clean, available toilet to be a right.
I've paid for others to use toilets, and I'll keep doing so.
"Don't let people pay for things because poor people might not be able to afford it" is offensive to "poor" people.
Oh well. If it makes him feel like he's championing a cause...
Posit a reason why it is socially unacceptable for people to just crap in the street, then.
(This is the difference between a negative and positive right)
If someone has a right to clean, available toilets at all times, then someone must pay to provide those services. I'm happy to donate to the cause, but I don't think the force of law should compel me to part with my money to buy someone a toilet.
Especially because PAY toilets solve this problem so elegantly.
For example, imagine a pay toilet that, when you pay, you have the option to buy access to the same toilet to someone who is unable to pay themselves. I'd do it. This is basically the same idea as the "leave a little, take a little" coin jar many shop vendors have.
If you need 20 cents for some reason, take it. I usually just dump my extra change into that jar. I would do the same in a pay toilet, and often have.
It's important to distinguish what kind of "things" you're talking about, though. There's a pretty big moral difference between not being able to afford consumer goods and not being able to find an appropriate place to perform basic bodily functions.