Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideBhoomija Senior Secondary School

102, Mayur Vihar, Nangal Jaisa Bohara, Niwaru Rd, Triveni Nagar-1, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302012, India26.96476, 75.73821audited 2026-08-07

4/100

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, 4 are missing entirely.

This road · 4

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 35 (worst first). The others scored between 0 and 41.

2.5points earned

68points we could see (68%)

3.7%provision

1exposure — local

3.7provision × exposure

→

4SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (68% 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 W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 8-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 physical speed-control devices (humps, tables, rumble strips or thermoplastic bar markings) on any usable approach. The paved west-lane approaches to the gate (north via e862Qk, south via Mub8FoVM813E) and the unpaved east road both show plain surfaces with no calming. Absence is observed, not inferred; wider outlying approaches not fully traversed.

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 anywhere in view. The paved lane surface directly in front of the gate and the unpaved east road carry no crossing markings and no refuge islands. Single undivided carriageway; no crossing infrastructure observed.

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

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

Absent⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalNone

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

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (audit L1, blind L0); deciding images are both frontages. No constructed or raised footpath, and no continuous clear walkable edge, exists on either frontage: the west gate lane is a shared paved concrete lane on which students/pedestrians stand and walk (e862Qk-fK0XA_h179), and the east road alternates bare earth and a shared paved strip (txsOQmVPNQ4Z_h140; 8NOvEikM8CcK_h278). The only margins are unbuilt earthen strips (planted or rubble-strewn) and private paved house-aprons, not a walkable footpath edge; movable debris and parked vehicles are excluded from this built-form judgment. There is no footpath feature that 'exists but is broken/blocked' (L1) — pedestrians share the carriageway, which is L0. Auditor's L1 fell (it over-read intermittent paved/earthen margins as an existing broken footpath); blind L0 upheld on clear, repeated views of both frontages.

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-zone road signage observed: no school-warning signs, no speed-limit signs, no 2023-identity zone assets on either approach. The only signage is building name boards ('THE BHOOMIJA MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL', 'MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL'), which are not road-safety signage. Pole-mounted signs could sit outside captured FOVs or behind roadside trees, hence moderated observability.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

A little setback or partial barrier — limited space off the road.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

NoneMinimal

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

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (audit L0, blind L1); deciding image is e862Qk-fK0XA_h359, the single clear frontal view of the main gate (no dedicated west-gate zoom exists — the 'gate_zoom' panos show the east windowed wall). The ornamental grille gate sits in the building line behind a low raised paved plinth/threshold along the dark-clad base and opens onto the shared paved lane, with no railing, forecourt or assembly space. The raised paved threshold is a minimal setback and the closed grille a partial barrier -> L1; the gate does not open flush directly onto the carriageway (not L0), and there is no clear off-carriageway assembly space (not L2). Auditor's L0 fell (it read the gate as opening directly onto the carriageway, discounting the raised threshold); blind L1 upheld. Confidence MED — single frontal view of a marginal feature. Observability settled 0.6: the audit's 0.85 over-counted the east-side 'gate'-tagged panos, which depict the windowed side wall and add no coverage of the main entrance (>0.15 gap accounted for by those mislabelled east-wall frames).

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