r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/uhohelle • 13h ago

Meme needing explanation i’m a girl i don’t get this

Post image

like why wouldn’t this work. is it cause of the urinals so close to the sink?? or like.. cause idk

8.6k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/Hour-Rest-2579 13h ago

There's no joke. It would simply not work.

8

u/swayedsuede 13h ago

But why?

13

u/Hour-Rest-2579 13h ago

It's an inconvenient design. Not good for small restrooms, only for big ones.

11

u/Voelkar 13h ago

Not just that, the plumber that sees this will just laugh and refuse any service or installation

0

u/jellobowlshifter 5h ago

Why? It's not harder or more inconvenient than not doing it this way.

2

u/Fluffy_Most_662 1h ago

13 different installations and pipe systems instead of 3. Im not even a plumber and I know this would be ass. (Literally) Urinals are for piss. Liquid waste. Toilets are for solid waste. You pee in them too, but they need larger pipes that pull more water per flush. You cant have them on the same line. Alternating them like this is like installing 110v and 220v lines every 2 feet on a wall. If you really needed both you would have one wall for each. Which is why they do it the way they do. Also, the material cost for walls in between stalls is 1.5x. Having them all on one side eliminates basically one panel per stall. The urinals are basically blind, meaning that you have to check each one by physically looking at a guy with his dick out, and on the flip side of that, its extremely bad design to have places in public bathrooms where people are liable to get jumped. Its also a fire safety hazard and a risk for obese people.

0

u/HomemadeBananas 5h ago

Why would they refuse? They’d give whatever price they need to cover the job if some customer asked for it.

3

u/jemenake 12h ago

Small bathrooms are a urinal next to a stall. It’s this design with qty:1 of each fixture.

2

u/AzureYLila 12h ago

Hmmm... it could be scaled. The real issue is the placement of the sinks. They should be by an entrance. Some would have to unnecessarily walk against traffic just to wash their hands and leave.

1

u/whiskeytango55 12h ago

Urinals are typically only installed in larger restrooms

1

u/Eyerate 11h ago

Its not good for big ones either. The woman who designed this has zero idea where and what infrastructure is required inside the walls/floors.

1

u/Main_Leadership7748 7h ago

Not even good for big ones, it is a total waste of space. Most restrooms are long and narrow, and have maybe a max 2 plumbing walls. 3 is poorly designed and a waste of money, and likely a horrible maintenance issue.

1

u/Delicious-Day-3614 11h ago

Its overly complicated and unnecessary. Uniformity in construction is important cause the guy doing the work doesn't have time to figure everything out himself, he needs to put work in place efficiently. The more complicated you make it the more time it takes him and that drives your cost up. It is also just bad design as now you have to walk up on someone to see if the urinal is free.

1

u/samesandchanges 11h ago

wouldn't say 'it wouldn't work'

but being able to see at a glance if a urinal is open is certainly a plus for standard layout

7

u/Sharp_Net3315 13h ago

I don't see why not

5

u/HazyPastGamer 13h ago

Pipes would be a mess because the way urinals and toilets handle flushing.

2

u/Cautious_One9013 12h ago

Pure cost and efficiency standpoint. It would require a lot of unnecessary additional plumbing, additional panels and you fit more urinals when they are side by side allowing more simultaneous use of the facilities. Just off a rough estimation looking at that room, moving all of the toilets to one side and urinals to the other, you could fit the same number of toilets, with half of the panels needed, and an additional 4 to 6 urinals in there. Urinals are used far more often, so an additional 4 to 6 urinals would lead to much greater efficiency with moving crowds through the bathroom.

3

u/Sharp_Net3315 11h ago

That's a practical answer. It would still "work" though.

2

u/itriedtrying 8h ago

But what would be the benefit? It's just claustrophobic vibe and you can't even see right away if there's free urinals when you enter. It's literally just worse in every way than more conventional layouts.

2

u/Sharp_Net3315 7h ago

Because no one likes to pee next to each other. No more claustrophobic than a stall. 

1

u/Hulkaiden 6h ago

I don't think that's really true. I think most avoid it when they can, but when the restroom is busy most guys don't mind peeing next to other guys. It's more expensive, very little benefit, and most people would have a worse experience.

Having to check each urinal would make the already bad traffic to the sinks even worse, and where would the lines form? You'd have to have one line instead of the more efficient two lines restrooms that separate them can have.

1

u/Cautious_One9013 6h ago

They used to have communal troughs to pee in at Yankee stadium, most guys do not care about peeing next to another guy lol. You just don’t go next to someone if there’s plenty of room, that’s the only time it gets weird. The guys that care use the stalls anyway. 

1

u/censuur12 8h ago

Because you need a bunch of extra walls for this setup. You can't see which urinals are occupied without running up and down the isle. You'd get a door to the face walking toward the sink and it's especially bad if multiple people are trying to walk back and forth. It's a bizarrely stupid design and it's odd that you can't tell at a glance.

1

u/Purplazure 8h ago

Glory holes is the joke, no privacy unless you have two stalls next to each other.