Most public toilets in the US are very low in privacy, the bottom gap in the door is so big (around 15-20% of the door), the side gaps are too big as well. This will make the toilet experience so unpleasant with no privacy at all. You can literally count the people outside and people outside are like "ok, now he is wiping, etc.".
I can't think of a reason behind this. Can someone tell me why?
I can't find a definitive link but there are a few reasons, a lot of which were already covered in the comments.
One, the style in your picture makes the whole place easier to clean. You can hose down the floors in one go and there are not so many joins between the walls and the floors for gunk to build up. (EDIT: in your picture you can see that the toilets don't even join the floor -- so for that setup I'm pretty sure it's for ease of cleaning).
Two, it's so that people can see what you're doing in there. It discourages drug taking or people having sex in the cubicles because it's obvious what's going on. Also if someone passes out on the toilet (for whatever reason) it's easier for people to notice -- in a fully obscured stall someone could lie in there for a long time. It may also just discourage people for sitting in there for longer than necessary.
Lastly, it's cheaper and easier. Divisions like that can be deployed in any room regardless of the flatness of the floor, or the height of the room, etc. Building divisions that actually fit floor to ceiling might require custom cutting and fitting, that might happen in a big building with dozens of identical toilets but for the odd public toilet cheap and easy is the way people will go.
To add to choster's comment, it does tend to vary widely across the US. I've seen toilets with even less privacy than that picture -- like a door that's you can see over when you stand up. The concerns about misusing the toilets tend to trump the privacy, particularly in public places. But you're right, in many private places they will be more sealed. And there're many places in the world where you'll be lucky to find a door at all -- or many people that care that there's no door there.
The bottom "gaps" are for ADA. Minimum 12" so feet and foot rests clear...I believe. The cracks between doors are just poor construction tolerances that nobody in the States seems to care about.
I can see the arguments about it being easier to clean, and perhaps spying is good for safety, but what's the deal with urinals? Often times they are squeezed uncomfortably close together, and most don't have a guard wall between them. In these situations, it takes some intense concentration to not accidentally get an eye full of full frontal. What possible reason could there be for such an obvious lack of privacy? Some might argue it's economics, but I see this in expensive and cheap places alike.
The best I can figure is that these designs stem from a time where people didn't care as much about bathroom privacy (the era when high schools had to shower together as a group) and they've simply been grandfathered in.
Here's some good answers on another forum: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/4184
As an European I was always uncomfortable to use any public facility in USA, for the same reason and I asked myself, over and over, the same question "Why????" .
The official answer is here where you'll find this stunning ABSURD reason:
STALL DOORS
To prevent unnecessary queuing, anyone entering the restroom should be able to easily determine the state of occupancy of stalls. This can be done with doors that do not fully close when not in use or by other devices that signal occupancy. The doors of stalls often loose alignment over time. Doors should have sufficient clearance and locks latch length to function as the stall frame becomes misaligned. "
Of course, I do not believe this is the real reason. I think is more behind that official nonsense explanation, and I incline to believe that it about another way to invade our privacy. Plain and Simple!
As suggested on Seinfeld, the gap can be used to see if someone is inside before trying the door. Obviously there are usually locks for that purpose, but these tend to breakdown and the gap could work as a 'backup system'.
This phenomenon back home in the States varies. The lower the class of the clientele, public, or local user base, the less privacy there will be. There is no practical or benevolent utility to the wide spaces except to deny privacy in the bathroom. The ADA has no standards for clearance under a door to a toilet, although the space under a door is generally just enough to see feet in non-security-theater countries.
Doors with wide hinges and that "hang away" from the frame are actually more expensive and difficult to maintain, and are sold featuring their viewable apertures on each side (hinge- and latch-side pillaster clearances). These are often sold internationally as 'US style'. Americans (especially the more conservative or deprived segments of the herd) are a fearful, often oppressive lot, as most well know. Nothing illustrates this more than the small touches added to everything that bespeak their fears of 'someone might get away with something I disapprove of'.
As an architect, I can tell you that the only purposes in these gaps is to discourage comfort, satisfy resentment at the requirement to provide minimum facilities on the part of public accomodation locale business operators and conservative lawmakers, enable dehumanization and humiliate the lower classes. It is the same reason that US transit stops are often not weather-safe and have discomfort in mind (under the aegis of preventing homeless 'camping', and thereby non-participation in rent regimes). It is the same reasoning underlying the use of inordinate amounts of privacy invasion for basic interaction with any institution at the middle class level or below: frivolous and pointless oppressiveness and an ever-present precarity to keep people in line.
If one goes to or frequents reservation-limited municipal golf courses; country clubs; higher-tier restaurants, hotels, their associated cocktail lounges; and facilities in more homogeneous areas, these little touches disappear. A public park in the same city will have no doors on the stalls in the 'poor' part of town, not to mention likely prison-style fixtures for toilet paper (if any is on offer) and will generally lack sanitary supplies. However, in the richer part of town, a similar park (in addition to newer, better children's play equipment and sports facilities, as well as maintained landscaping), will have full privacy in well-lit, meticulously maintained restrooms with modern equipment and special touches (clean baby changing stations with filled wipe dispensers, heated water as well as the standard cold, and paper towels and toilet paper, present and of good quality).
Any other offers of explanation, really, are delusions. Americans blend classism with bitter, petty security-theater antics to keep the labor class on their knees.
