Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideGovt. Sr. Sec. School Hadota

7, Sikar Rd, Raiyon ki dhani, Chomu, Rajasthan 303702, India27.19335, 75.71489audited 2026-08-08

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.

5points earned

81.15points we could see (81%)

6.2%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

4.3provision × exposure

→

4SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (81% 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 an arterial road, on its W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

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

Crash record5 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 contextHigh — 68/100. 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≈88%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device (speed hump, raised table, rumble strip, or speed-control marking) visible on the frontage arterial or on the near approaches to the north and south of the gate. Carriageway surface is plain asphalt across multiple clear, consistent views, including the immediate approaches within ~30 m of the entrance zone each direction.

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≈88%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing, refuge island, or faded crossing remnant visible on the frontage or on either approach. Undivided carriageway with a plain surface throughout the viewed stretch, including the road directly in front of the entrance zone.

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≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Arterial (collector+) requires a raised footpath; none present. Both roadsides along the frontage and approaches are unpaved earthen shoulders with no built/raised footpath; a pedestrian is seen walking on the earthen shoulder. This is a permanent built condition, not parked-vehicle occlusion. The separate rural lane at the zone edge is likewise unpaved with no footpath.

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

ConfidenceLow

Coverage seen≈55%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

One yellow diamond warning sign on a pole near the gate (3dmRoUOLrU9L gate_zoom) but its pictogram is not legible at this resolution, so a school-specific warning cannot be confirmed. Other visible roadside signs are commercial hoardings (e.g. a HOTEL board, a cement-shop board). No confirmable school warning sign on either approach, no compliant speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp, and no named 2023-identity asset. Scored at the lower candidate level under LOW legibility confidence.

◑

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

Audit read fell. Audit scored L0 (gate opens directly onto carriageway) at obs 0.30 LOW, evidently defaulting to L0 because the exact gate leaf is occluded by the tree and parked van. But unseen is not absent, and the setback itself is clearly and redundantly visible: all four gate frames across two panoramas (3dmRoUOLrU9L and MhKTX8lawpd6, wide + zoom) show the painted compound wall set well back behind a wide earthen setback that runs the entire frontage, deep enough that a Tempo Traveller van, a tree, and a dog all sit comfortably between the carriageway and the wall. That is a clear setback giving off-carriageway assembly space = L2, and it is more than the minimal setback of L1. L3 is not supported: no separate pedestrian opening and no continuous gate-to-crossing rail are visible (the leaf is occluded), so L3 is unconfirmable and L2 is the ceiling. Observability gap (audit 0.30 vs blind 0.60): the setback/assembly-space segment is fully observable and decides the L2 award, while the occluded gate-leaf / pedestrian-opening / gate-to-crossing-rail segment accounts for the remaining ~0.4; final 0.60. Confidence MED (gate leaf partially occluded; L2 does not require HIGH).

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

2026-08-08Audited

2027-02-08Re-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