Yeah, I’m skeptical that any system (within a reasonable budget) could even distinguish between one or two people, much less the far, far more difficult task of distinguishing between two people engaging in “acceptable” vs. “forbidden” behavior - something which I suspect they haven’t even considered. (With that consideration in mind, at best, with good sensors and very smart software, you’d still end up with a system that stays closed for most cottaging, but springs open occasionally for people going about their business.)
Not so much. They’re supposed to be covered by “a flexible floor covering.” In other words, they’re meant to be put go on top of the floor, under carpet or a mat, not the kind of hard-wearing surface you’d have in a public toilet. Even in that situation, they’re clearly not designed for the kind of task being demanded of them here. (That’s not getting into the theoretical problems beyond just detecting the number of people entering.)
Ok, it’s just unreasonably expensive. (Anything that’s only “pricing on request” isn’t cheap.) There are monthly costs based on size and complexity of task. The most basic system, that might just detect how many people entered at once, would be hundreds of dollars a month. (And that would simply be for a square of sensors under a floor mat by the door, easily disabled or avoided.) That’s not counting the costs of all the systems they’re supposed to be hooked up to (the computing devices for real-time tracking and analysis, automatic doors, water sprayers), nor their maintenance costs. All this as totally superfluous expenses on top of just building and maintaining a public toilet, which municipalities already tend to struggle with.
