Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideMahatma Gandhi GOVERNMENT SCHOOL BHANKROTA JAIPUR

Bhakrota, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302026, India26.87261, 75.69877audited 2026-08-07

24/100

Unsafeprovisional band

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

Of the five things we check, 4 are missing entirely.

This road · 24

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

15points earned

63.75points we could see (64%)

23.5%provision

1exposure — local

23.5provision × exposure

→

24SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (64% 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 11-leg junction

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

Crash record5 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 5 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextModerate — 38/100. 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

A speed hump in the zone

At least one proper speed-calming device sits in the school zone.

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

15 of 30 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points15 of 30

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Re-examined 7Rx4 h105: a full-width transverse yellow/black hazard-striped raised speed table/hump crosses the E-W local frontage carriageway in the zone - a physical calming device with the defined width and hazard striping of a speed breaker, not mere TBM/rumble markings, so >=1 sound hump/table in zone = L2. Auditor L1 (markings-only / single worn device far from gate) fell; blind L2 upheld. Not L3: the N-S approach (YKddd h009/h189) shows no hump, so a sound device is not present within 30 m of the gate on each usable approach, and only a single clear view exists (MED, not HIGH); L2 requires only MED. Parked motorcycle beside the hump is momentary and not scored.

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No legible marked pedestrian crossing (zebra or table-top) observed on any near-gate local stretch (7Rx4 h105/h285, YKddd h009/h189). The striped hump on the E-W frontage carries no longitudinal zebra markings. Local undivided lane -> refuge not required. Near-gate surfaces were visible enough to judge absence -> MED.

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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No built footpath on any frontage lane; buildings and compound walls meet the carriageway edge and pedestrians share the running surface. Two children walking in the carriageway (92aET h189). Consistent across multiple clear views (gate lanes and traverse points) -> children-on-carriageway = L0.

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈55%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning sign, speed-limit sign, or zone-identity asset observed on the near-gate local frontage. The 'ADMISSIONS OPEN ... SCHOOL' wall mural (YKddd h009) is a private advertisement, not a traffic warning sign, and is not credited. Prohibition/commercial signage exists only on the distant arterial at the zone edge, not on the school frontage.

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.

Also cited for this check

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceLow

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Re-examined the gate views: the best-match government-school building (YKddd h132 wide/zoom) presents its door and window face directly onto open sandy ground with no built compound-wall-plus-gate forecourt - open unpaved ground is not a built setback, so built form = gate opens directly onto the carriageway/open ground = L0. Blind L1 fell: its 'setback/forecourt' evidence came from 7Rx4 h315, a two-storey walled residential compound with a black ornamental gate that is not the government-school entrance. Auditor L0 upheld. Confidence LOW because the exact main-gate leaf is unresolved; LOW keeps the lower candidate (L0). No marked pick-up/drop-off bay or continuous gate-to-crossing rail anywhere. Observability settled at 0.50 versus the auditor's 0.85 (>0.15 gap): the near-gate frontage is broadly visible, but the specific main-entrance leaf is uncertain and the clearest gate-candidate view (7Rx4 h315) is heavily occluded by foliage and parked vehicles, so effective coverage of the gate environment itself is ~0.5.

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 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.

02Lifts 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.

03Lifts 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).

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