Schools / Delhi

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideKerala School Vikaspuri

KG3/13, Site- 3, Block KG 3, Vikaspuri, Delhi, 110018, India28.63296, 77.07611audited 2026-08-06

24/100

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 · 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

61.75points we could see (62%)

24.3%provision

1exposure — local

24.3provision × exposure

→

24SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (62% 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

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 S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 5-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 contextModerate — 22/100 (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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, table, raised crossing or rumble strip visible on the frontage or on either approach across multiple road views; carriageway is plain asphalt including at the junction by the gate. Immediate near-field partly blurred/occluded by junction traffic.

◑

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

A faded or distant crossing

A crossing exists but is worn, or well away from the gate.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

BasicMinimal

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

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit's L2 falls. It cited protQiL8nCkm_h020 for a 'legible marked crossing', but re-examination of that frame shows no zebra near the gate. The only crossing present is worn transverse stripes at the far SW end ~150 m from the gate (uaFqRsUCG-1v_h238) — both faded and far from the gate, which is the explicit L1 condition, not an L2 legible frontage crossing (and 'far from gate' caps at L1 regardless of legibility). No crossing within 20 m of the gate on the gate-frontage frames. Blind read's L1 stands. Final L1, obs 0.6, MED (single worn/far view of the crossing; near-gate absence is clear).

◑

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≈55%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local street — assessing continuous walkable edge, permanent condition only. NW side has a raised plinth/forecourt in front of shops/dispensary but it is broken by building steps, boundary gates and property-line level changes; SE side is largely unpaved under trees with vendor platforms. No continuous clear walkable edge evident on either full side (parked vehicles/carts disregarded).

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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No traffic school-warning sign or speed-limit sign observed on either approach; poles carry no visible sign plates, though dense tree canopy could hide small plates. A school name banner (KERALA SCHOOL VIKAS PURI) and commercial hoardings are present but are not traffic warning/regulatory signage. No 2023-identity zone assets or carriageway speed stamp seen.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

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

Partial

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceLow

Coverage seen≈40%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate does not open flush onto the moving carriageway — a forecourt/junction apron and a boundary wall sit in front. Cannot confirm a clear dedicated setback with assembly space, a separate pedestrian opening, or continuous rail from gate to a crossing; both views are oblique and partly occluded by vendor umbrella, hoarding and parked cars. Scored to the lower candidate given low confidence.

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