Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideVivekanand Public School

Plot no.107-108 North Avenue Harmara Ghati, Sikar Rd, Jaipur, Nindar, Rajasthan 302048, India27.02144, 75.76781audited 2026-08-07

15/100

Critically unsafeprovisional band

Critically unsafe. Almost nothing on this road protects a child from traffic on the way to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 3 are missing entirely.

This road · 15

0 · no protectioncomplete protection · 100

Checked twice, independently

Two AI readers on separate accounts · corrections logged in public

Confirmed

Corrected

Unresolved

See how each was judged

Of 153 roads scored so far, this one ranks 105 (worst first). The others scored between 0 and 41.

11.25points earned

72.75points we could see (73%)

15.46%provision

1exposure — local

15.46provision × exposure

→

15SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (73% of the rubric here); the rest is left uncounted rather than guessed. A road with full protective infrastructure scores near 100.

The road in context · derived from public data

Where this road sits

Before the checks: what kind of road this is, how it meets other roads, and what passes it. These lines describe the road and its surroundings — they do not change the score.

Road layout around the gate, drawn from OpenStreetMap — Road layout · drawn from OpenStreetMap · blue dot = school coordinate · red = fatal-crash points (Jaipur Police)

Satellite view of the same area — Satellite · © Google · retrieved 2026-08-13 (capture date not published by the imagery API)

FrontageThe gate opens onto a local street, on its N side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 6-leg junction

Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)

Crash record2 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 1 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextModerate — 28/100. Describes how much traffic and crash risk passes this road — context only, never part of the road score (method: exposure v1, Data page)

Road layout data © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), retrieved 13 Aug 2026 · crash data: Jaipur Police · derivations: `exposure_v1` on the Data page.

What we found · five checks · IRC:SP:32-2023

Five things we checked — and the photo behind each

Each check was read once, then verified blind by a second reader on a separate account. The photo each finding came from sits right beside it. Tap “see how this was judged” for the full reasoning.

Slowing traffic downP1 · Physical speed control

Nothing slows traffic at the gate

No speed hump, table or rumble strip on the approach — vehicles reach the gate at full speed.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 30 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 30

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, table, rumble strip or calming marking visible on the local-street carriageway in any view, on either side of the gate or along the zone. Immediate gate-front foreground is privacy-blurred in several frames, so absence is asserted only for the substantial visible stretches (unseen not treated as absent). L0.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing, zebra or refuge island visible anywhere; carriageway near the gate and along the frontage is dusty/partly-paved and unmarked. Visible stretches only; foreground blur noted. L0.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A broken walking edge

A walking edge exists but is broken or blocked for most of the frontage.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

NoneMinimal

An independent second reader changed this — the two readings disagreed, and the evidence below settled it.

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The audit's L0 falls. The frontage clearly shows a wide walkable dirt setback/margin on the school side (children exiting the archway assemble in the forecourt, off the vehicle track - 8zWw0MQU5iTt_h298_f90 and h327_f90) plus discontinuous raised private shop plinths on the opposite side (Wy1TgvB2FfQD_h205, ViRoyj4nEbkx_h327). A broken/blocked walkable edge therefore exists along most of the frontage, which directly contradicts L0's anchor of 'none / children on carriageway.' No continuous built footpath exists on either side (undifferentiated shared surface on the school side, stepped private thresholds opposite), so not L2. Settles at L1. Confidence MED: the walkable margin plainly exists (favouring L1) but is undifferentiated and discontinuous, so not HIGH; MED keeps L1 over L0. Observability 0.75 (both sides reasonably covered; gate-front blur is the gap).

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No road traffic school-warning sign, speed-limit sign, school-zone carriageway markings, beacon or named 2023-identity asset visible on either approach. Present signage is the school's own name boards/murals ('VIVEKANAND PUBLIC SCHOOL' / 'VPS') and an unrelated painted advertisement for another school; these are not traffic signage. L0.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

Space and a railing at the gate

A clear setback or railing gives room to gather off the carriageway.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalBasic

An independent second reader changed this — the two readings disagreed, and the evidence below settled it.

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈85%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The audit's L1 falls. Two independent panoramas (8zWw0MQU5iTt_h298 gate_zoom/gate_wide and XeGwZErWflcg_h122 gate_zoom/gate_wide) show the main entrance as a recessed archway set back behind a dirt forecourt that provides genuine off-carriageway assembly space, PLUS a continuous low compound wall topped with a metal-mesh railing running the length of the frontage. Both L2 qualifiers are met (clear setback AND railing giving off-carriageway assembly space) - more than L1's 'minimal setback / partial barrier.' Not L3: no separate dedicated pedestrian opening distinct from the main archway is confirmed, and there is no crossing (P2 L0) for a rail to run toward. Settles at L2 with HIGH confidence (two clear consistent views of the built form). The parked scooters/cars in the forecourt and the temporary bamboo screen are momentary/temporary and were not used to establish the level. Observability 0.85 (gate structure very well seen; only the immediate threshold foreground is blurred).

At the gate

On the frontage road

Along the street

Some captures sit on neighbouring lanes; older ones are shown greyed and were used only for context.

What must be fixed · 5 actions

What would make this road safe — and who owns each fix

Each action maps to a failing check, the relevant IRC:SP:32-2023 clause, and the responsible agency. Agency labels are provisional and correctable through the dispute channel.

01Lifts P1

Install a speed table or twin speed humps within 30 m of the gate

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.13 · Table 5.1MCD / PWD · provisional

Speed humps near schools roughly halve child-pedestrian injury odds (Tester 2004); 30 km/h calmed zones ≈ 40% fewer casualties (Grundy 2009).

02Lifts P2

Mark a crossing within 20 m of the gate — table-top preferred

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.4.3MCD / PWD · provisional

Raised crossings cut vehicle speeds at the exact conflict point.

03Lifts P3

Provide a continuous clear walking edge on the school side

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.4.1MCD / PWD · provisional

A continuous footpath keeps children off the carriageway on the approach, not only at the gate.

04Lifts P4

School-zone warning signs on both approaches with the speed limit

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.8MCD / PWD · provisional

The zone must announce itself to drivers before the gate.

05Lifts P5

Add space and a marked pick-up bay off the carriageway at the gate

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.2MCD / PWD · provisional

Children should not step from the gate into a moving traffic lane.

Responsible-agency labels come from the CFI field instrument’s mapping and are correctable via the dispute channel.

Re-audit timeline

2026-08-07Audited

2027-02-07Re-audit due

Every published road is re-read every six months, or as soon as new Street View imagery lands, or on a sustained dispute.

Something wrong on this page?

The entrance, the imagery, a finding — if any of it is wrong, tell us. A dispute pauses this page while the audit is re-verified, and the correction is logged in the public record.

Dispute this audit