Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSilver Fitness Club

BRT Road, Dange Chouk,Near raghu Nandan Mangal Karyalaya ,, Tathawade, Ram Nagar, Tathawade, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Maharashtra 411033, India18.62327, 73.75836audited 2026-08-06

22/100

Unsafeprovisional band

Unsafe. Very little on this road protects a child crossing to the gate.

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

This road · 22

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

17.5points earned

61points we could see (61%)

28.7%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

21.5provision × exposure

→

22SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (61% 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

FrontageThe gate opens onto an arterial road (Aundh Ravet Road), on its SW side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 3-leg junction

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

Crash recordcrash-location data is not yet available for Delhi — this line will be added when a public source lands

Exposure contextElevated — 48/100 (partial: no crash component yet). 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 humps, raised tables, rumble strips, or other physical speed-control devices visible on the main carriageway, the frontage service lane, or the side streets in any view; only plain asphalt and lane/edge markings.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

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

Absent

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing, zebra remnant, refuge cut, or signalised crossing visible anywhere in the observed zone span, including the stretch fronting the entrance; median barrier fencing runs continuously with no crossing gap seen.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

Partial

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Entrance side has a wide raised paved footpath/forecourt with kerb, tree pits, and a green edge railing, continuous along the visible frontage (permanent form; parked two-wheelers ignored as momentary). The opposite side of the divided carriageway is not clearly assessable, and the side streets (zPFj, xO-vt panos) lack footpaths, so both-sides continuity cannot be confirmed.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school warning signs, speed-limit signs, carriageway speed stamps, or 2023 zone-identity assets visible on either approach; only commercial hoardings and directional/sales signage seen.

◑

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

NoneBasic

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The audit read fell. It scored L0 as a floor because its entrance identification was LOW, while its own note concedes the frontage 'sits behind a paved plaza rather than opening directly onto the carriageway' - i.e. not the L0 condition. The deciding images (2eg7yVMpmK4l_h240_f90_gate_wide.jpg, 2eg7yVMpmK4l_h240_f35_gate_zoom.jpg) show the entrance opening onto a broad raised paved forecourt with trees, benches, and a green edge railing between the assembly area and the service lane: permanent built form satisfying L2 (clear setback with off-carriageway assembly space). With the entrance adjudicated identified at MED, the built form is scorable. L3 fails (no separate pedestrian opening discernible, no crossing for a gate-to-crossing rail), and L2 does not require HIGH confidence. Observability gap > 0.15 (blind 0.8 vs audit 0.25): the gap is accounted for by the K8jZYkZEEWZx h330 gate-tagged frames, which cover only an unrelated rear utility wall and contribute nothing, and by the audit discounting the 2eg7 frontage for identification uncertainty; settled 0.6 for single-position coverage of the assembly area. Confidence MED (single panorama position).

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

2026-08-06Audited

2027-02-06Re-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