Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideShri Shivaji Vidyamandir and Kanishtha Mahavidyalaya Aundh

Aundh Road, Chatrapati Chowk Next to Sidhharth Nagar Entrance Gate, HR87+325, Phase 1, Siddarth Nagar Society, Aundh, Pune, Maharashtra 411067, India18.56513, 73.81262audited 2026-08-06

26/100

Unsafeprovisional band

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

Of the five things we check, 2 are missing entirely.

This road · 26

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

23.75points earned

68points we could see (68%)

34.9%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

26.2provision × exposure

→

26SSI · 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

FrontageThe gate opens onto an arterial road (University Road), on its NE side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

Street activitya marketplace · 1 mapped shop 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 — 59/100 (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

Carriageway surface visible along most of the zone in six traversal and four road views; no speed hump, raised table, rumble strip or transverse bar marking anywhere in the zone. Some near-gate lane surface obscured by traffic and parked vehicles, hence observability 0.8.

◑

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

A marked crossing in the zone

A legible marked crossing is present in the school zone.

Partial

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

A zebra crossing with legible though worn stripes is visible in the zone at the junction area in HPpnO_ECUjpG_h156_f90_trav.jpg (single view). No crossing is visible near the gate itself — pedestrians seen crossing the divided carriageway mid-block in tMWjKFYYZLwz_h024_f35_gate_zoom.jpg — so not within 20 m of gate; no refuge at the marked crossing.

◑

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

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Arterial, so raised footpath required. School side has a kerb-edged paved strip in stretches (kerb painted black-yellow, T1fM12Z7jzC-_h188) and a wide paved apron at the gate, but it is at or near carriageway level, functions as a vehicle apron, and is not a continuous raised footpath. Opposite side is largely unpaved/broken shoulder fronting shops (fpc6p19SRY3t_h310, tMWjKFYYZLwz_h304) with only a partial paved stretch (tMWjKFYYZLwz_h124). Footpath exists but broken/discontinuous along most of the frontage.

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school warning sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp, or 2023 school-zone identity asset visible in any view on either approach. Only non-school signage seen: NH4/Expressway directional gantry (fpc6p19SRY3t_h310) and a no-parking sign near the gate (tMWjKFYYZLwz_h024_f90_gate_wide.jpg). Sign faces pointing away from the camera on some approaches could not be read, hence observability 0.7.

◑

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

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate does not open directly onto the carriageway: a wide paved setback apron lies between the compound and the arterial, and the compound is bounded by a continuous iron railing/fence with steps up to the entrance (both gate zooms). Off-carriageway assembly space exists. No separate pedestrian opening distinguishable in the zooms, no continuous rail from gate to a crossing, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay.

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 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 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.

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