So Tommy, Claire, and I left the Goasis refreshed, rehydrated, snacked up, topped off and ready to roll on to Cleveland.
When we were on the road again I told Tommy and Claire about the incident of the confused, distressed old lady who wanted to buck the ladies' room line and the impervious line leader who stood her ground.
I told them how it all went down and asked for their input.
Tommy, as expected, said that he, too, would have let the lady in need go to the head of the line.
Claire, however, was more skeptical. Was it not possible, she wondered, that this person might just have been playing the pathetic little old lady card to avoid standing in line?
I assured Claire that this old gal looked like the real deal, especially with her son (or whoever he was) helping her along, unless he was just a prop in the scheme to get her to the front of the bathroom line so they could get in and out and back on the road like everyone else wished they could do.
But no, I assured Claire, I really didn't think this lady was scamming us, I thought she really was sending out an SOS. Claire then conceded that if that was truly the case then it probably would have been all right to let her cut in.
Still, a couple comments on yesterday's blog, one from my brother Joe and one from my sister-in-law Mary Jane have given me pause.
The gist of Joe's comment (in so many words, and as I understood it) was that I was just lucky that I wasn't the one who had to go really bad.
This is true. Supposing I'd been in a desperate state myself? Would I then have been so generous with my spot in the line and so judgmental of the lady at the front of the line who wouldn't give up her spot? And by doing a solid (or maybe a liquid) for one lady might I not have been doing an injustice to another who, though equally desperate had played by the rules and done her time in line?
Mary Jane's comment also provoked thought. She said that she, too had the same complaint about the Goasis, which I'm guessing her crew must hit when making the Cleveland-Columbus trek.
She said she wondered what they were thinking when they designed it (meaning the bathroom area). Which got me to wondering the same thing: What were they thinking? I mean what were they actually thinking? I mean, when the architect was selling the Goasis design to the person who was having this super-deluxe travel stop built along a busy interstate, how exactly did he sell the business owner on the idea of installing only three ladies' commodes? Did he maybe say that women will be happy to wait to experience a big, fancy bathroom instead of a quickie stall? Did the business owner actually buy that?
Well he must have.
Did neither the architect nor the business owner know anything about the relationship between architecture and social engineering? That is, how the design of an edifice or public space can influence the behavior of the human beings who must make use of the edifice or space?
I have half a mind to write to whoever owns the Goasis and ask them what it was that convinced them that three seats would be acceptable for an establishment that caters to probably 500 women a day.
Actually I have three-quarters of a mind to do it.
By dang, I'm going to do it! I'm going to write to the Goasis and seek to find out what they were thinking when they bought into this bathroom design, and if they have they have had any rude awakening on the error of their design.
I'll keep you posted on what I find out.