Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSATYAM ACADEMY SCHOOL

94-95, Green Avenue Nagar, Ajmer Rd, Gajsinghpur, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021, India26.87762, 75.72084audited 2026-08-08

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

78.5points we could see (78%)

3.2%provision

1exposure — local

3.2provision × exposure

→

3SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (78% 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 local street, on its W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 3-leg junction

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

Crash record4 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 2 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextModerate — 30/100. 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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device of any kind visible on either approach to the gate or across the zone. Both gate-pano road views (h075/h255) and traverse frames at ~28 m, ~38 m, ~151 m and ~180 m show a bare dirt/earth carriageway with no hump, table, rumble strip or markings. Road surface is unpaved for most of its length. Approaches to the gate were clearly seen, so absence is genuine, not unseen.

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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing anywhere. Surface at and around the gate is unpaved dirt with no crossing markings, no refuge, no ramps. Both approaches within 20 m of the candidate gate were clearly visible and show nothing.

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≈82%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No continuous walkable edge. The street is a shared dirt/earth carriageway; only discontinuous private interlocking-paver forecourts sit in front of individual houses, broken by dirt gaps, driveways and open plots, and there is no dedicated footpath on either side. Pedestrians use the carriageway directly (a child and adults seen standing/walking on the roadway in _QQLwjKyNbi3_h075). Local-street walkable-edge test fails at L0.

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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school warning sign, speed-limit sign or any 2023-identity zone asset visible on either approach. Roadside poles carry only commercial/advertising material (yellow coaching ads on the pole by the gate; a blue SHIV SHAKTI banner) and an electricity-pole tag (JWG100208). The school's own name board is a premises placard, not a traffic-control or zone sign. Poles and roadside were reasonably visible on both approaches.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

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

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

NoneMinimal

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

Also cited for this check

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit read (L0, 'opens directly onto carriageway') fell. The deciding gate frames positively show a walled frontage with a shallow paved apron, not a bare opening onto the carriageway: the nearest-point gate (_QQLwjKyNbi3) is a grille driveway gate set in a stone-clad boundary wall with a shallow interlocking-paver forecourt (car parked on it) between the gate line and the dirt street; the alternative ornamental gate (ulDT1TZ7Aa-d) likewise sits in a boundary wall over a paved path. Either candidate gives a minimal setback / partial barrier = L1. Not L2: the forecourt is a shallow car-occupied private driveway, not off-carriageway assembly space, and the ornamental gate leads to a private garden path; no railing giving assembly space. MED (not HIGH) confidence from the two-candidate entrance ambiguity and foreground standing-water occlusion of the immediate gate-to-carriageway transition; L1 carries no HIGH requirement. Momentary parked car in the forecourt not scored into the level.

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