Schools / Delhi

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideDelhi Heritage School

Oppo, Main, Kanjhawala Rd, Jain Colony, Sector 22, Rohini, Delhi, 110086, India28.72560, 77.05689audited 2026-08-06

3/100

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 · 3

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

2.5points earned

73.75points we could see (74%)

3.4%provision

1exposure — local

3.4provision × exposure

→

3SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (74% 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 W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-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, rumble strip or thermoplastic bump seen anywhere in the zone — at the gate (both directions) or on the sampled approaches. Frontage running surface is largely unpaved/dusty in 2026, and the paved approach sections show no devices.

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked, table-top or signalised pedestrian crossing anywhere in the zone, and no faded remnant near the gate. A central median exists that could serve as a refuge, but no crossing is associated with it. Much of the school-side frontage is bare earth where painted markings could not exist; near-gate stretches in both directions were visible and show none.

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

No usable walking edge; children walk in the traffic lane.

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 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Deciding frames are the gate frontage/gali, not the arterial. At the identified entrance the school building meets an unpaved dirt apron with no kerb, raised footpath or delineated walking edge — children and two-wheelers share the running surface directly (JFdcNhLDzKcw_h342_f90, h027; 9CxipD0i8MKn_h179/h359): this is the L0 condition. The broken paved platforms my blind read cited (steel-shop plinth JFdcNhLDzKcw_h207; Delhi Granite pavers vqSp_h291) lie on the SEPARATE arterial approach and do not extend to the frontage, so L1's 'footpath exists but broken along most of frontage' is not met. Blind read (L1) falls; audit read (L0) stands.

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

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Roadside yellow '50' speed-limit sign on the central median near the school (NRK8Pah2o6l8_h336): value 50 km/h, exceeds the 20 km/h reference for a local road, so no compliant-speed credit. A 'DELHI HERITAGE SCHOOL' board is mounted on the median and on the building (NRK8Pah2o6l8_h336; CxV2aA2WRlJ__h336; JFdcNhLDzKcw_h342_f35) — identity signage, not a cautionary school-warning sign. No standard school-warning (cautionary) sign confirmed on either approach, and no 2023 zone-identity asset (transition/zone-start sign, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white markings, beacon) 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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Main-building frontage (JFdcNhLDzKcw_h342 wide/zoom) has a low planted shrub border between the facade and the carriageway, and a partial railing was present in 2022 (CxV2aA2WRlJ__h336), but the entrance abuts the dusty carriageway with vehicles massing at the edge — minimal setback / partial barrier only, not a clear generous assembly setback. No separate pedestrian opening confirmed in zoom, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay 20 m or more from the gate. The adjoining awning/steps entrance on the north gali (9CxipD0i8MKn_h240) is of ambiguous ownership and not relied on.

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