Crashfree India School Safety Index DELHI · JAIPUR · PUNE

Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideJ P Senior Secondary School

Bhankrota-Sirsi Rd, Bhakrota, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302026, India26.87332, 75.69531audited 2026-08-07
0/100
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, 5 are missing entirely.
This road · 0
0 · no protectioncomplete protection · 100
Checked twice, independently
Two AI readers on separate accounts · corrections logged in public
4
Confirmed
1
Corrected
0
Unresolved
See how each was judged
Of 153 roads scored so far, this one ranks 1 (worst first). The others scored between 0 and 41.
0points earned
/
78.7points we could see (79%)
=
0.0%provision
×
0.85exposure — collector
=
0.0provision × exposure
→
0SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (79% 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© Google
Satellite · © Google · retrieved 2026-08-13 (capture date not published by the imagery API)
FrontageThe gate opens onto a collector road, on its E side
Junctionthe gate area sits at a 10-leg junction
Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)
Crash record3 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 4 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)
Exposure contextElevated — 47/100. 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≈80%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device anywhere in zone: no hump, table, rumble strip or thermoplastic bump. Both usable approaches within 30 m of the gate are visible on the road axis (LuyApwtbfE2k h283/h103, 2026-03) and the market stretch to ~53 m (ktrHp1ti trav, 2026-03) and market square (_Xxxnhojhoc h238, 2026-03) are clear. Surface is largely unpaved dirt. Seen stretches are clear of devices.

✕
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≈78%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No marked or built pedestrian crossing anywhere: no zebra, tabletop crossing or refuge island near the gate or across the market square. Road surface largely unpaved, precluding markings. Relevant near-gate carriageway and both approaches are visible and clear of any crossing.

✕
Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

No usable walking edge; children walk in the traffic lane.

Absent
Also cited for this check
0 of 25 points
LevelNone (L0)
Points0 of 25
ConfidenceHigh
Coverage seen≈82%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

Mapped collector requires a raised footpath; none present. Both frontages near the gate and along the axis are unpaved dirt with shops opening directly onto the street; pedestrians use the carriageway/dirt margin. Only discontinuous private shop plinths/aprons and drainage edges (e.g. ko-NlDihE8sJ h091; Architect Designs red-tiled forecourt in Z7AZKKzAksWx h103) — not a continuous walkable footpath on either side. Both sides visible near gate; absence supported for seen stretches.

✕
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≈72%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No traffic or school signage of any kind: no school-warning sign, no speed-limit sign, and no 2023-identity zone assets (transition sign, zone-start marker, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, beacon hardware) at the gate or on either approach. Only commercial shop boards present (including the school's own name board). Gate and both approaches visible; absence supported for seen stretches.

✕
The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

The gate opens onto the road

Children step from the gate straight toward moving traffic.

Absent⟳ Corrected in review
NoneNone

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

0 of 10 points
LevelNone (L0)
Points0 of 10
ConfidenceMed
Coverage seen≈75%
VerificationCorrected in the second reading
The full reasoning

Reads differ (blind L1, audit L0). Re-examined the only pano resolving the gate, LuyApwtbfE2k h141 wide + zoom (_XxxnhYojhoc h355 shows the market square, not the gate). The grey barred sliding gate is flush with the continuous commercial building line; in front is only the generic raised shop-frontage plinth (continuous with the adjacent bakery plinth), then the unpaved carriageway margin where motorcycles park. There is no dedicated setback creating off-carriageway assembly space, no railing or partial barrier, and no pick-up/drop-off bay. The blind read's L1 fell: a generic continuous shopfront plinth is a threshold step, not a setback or partial barrier, so the gate opens essentially directly onto the shared carriageway. Auditor's L0 upheld. Confidence MED (single close viewpoint; wide and zoom share one pano/heading). Observability settled 0.75 vs auditor 0.95: the >0.15 gap is because the auditor's value appears to count the h355 approach as a second gate view, but h355 resolves the market square rather than the gate; the near-gate P5 zone is nonetheless well covered by the one close pano.

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