Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideGurukul Public School

Nindar Road Harmada Sikar Road, 2Q68+HJ7, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302013, India27.01141, 75.76655audited 2026-08-08

36/100

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 · 36

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

27.5points earned

65points we could see (65%)

42.3%provision

0.85exposure — collector

36.0provision × exposure

→

36SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (65% 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 collector road (Ninder Road), on its S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 6-leg junction

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

Crash record4 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 1 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextElevated — 50/100. 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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed humps, tables or rumble strips visible on either approach (Gt11/sSQKnD road views, CVrr/MM trav views); the marked crossing ahead is flat, not raised. The immediate gate-front is occluded by a parked bus, so a device right at the gate cannot be positively excluded, hence observability <1 and MED confidence.

◑

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

A marked crossing in the zone

A legible marked crossing is present in the school zone.

Partial

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Legible painted zebra crossing on the frontage carriageway roughly 25-35 m west of the gate, seen clearly from three panos. Flat (not raised/table-top or signalised) and no refuge island on this undivided carriageway. Distance to gate not confidently within 20 m and no refuge, so it does not qualify for L3; L2 (legible marked crossing in zone).

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

Partial

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Raised paved footpath with kerb, trees and benches runs along the school (south) frontage. The opposite (north) side is compound wall / dirt shoulder with hoardings and no continuous raised footpath. Continuous usable footpath on one side only (collector requires raised footpath). Construction hoarding interrupts the south edge west of the gate (listed under observations).

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning signs, speed-limit signs or 2023-identity zone assets (fluorescent yellow-green faces, zone-start/transition signs, red-white school-zone road markings, beacon hardware) seen on either approach or at the zone extremities. The green board at the gate is a school name/identity board, not a traffic sign. Gate-front partly occluded by the parked bus, so observability <1.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

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

Partial

Also cited for this check

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceLow

Coverage seen≈30%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

The gate leaf and its immediate setback are occluded by a bus parked at the frontage in all four gate shots. An adjacent raised footpath/forecourt gives some off-carriageway space and a green name board sits on a pillar just left of the bus, so the gate does not appear to open directly onto the carriageway (above L0); but setback depth, any separate pedestrian opening, railing continuity and a drop-off bay cannot be confirmed. LOW confidence under occlusion so the lower candidate level is scored.

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