Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideMahatma Gandhi government school English medium

RQ3F+43P Thani kumavatan, Dada Gurudev Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302029, India26.80272, 75.77254audited 2026-08-06

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

79points we could see (79%)

6.3%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

4.4provision × exposure

→

4SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (79% 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 (Diggi Malpura Rd), on its NW side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 3-leg junction

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

Crash recordno road death within 500 m of the gate in the Jaipur Police crash data

Exposure contextElevated — 48/100. 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 speed hump, speed table, raised crossing, rumble strip or transverse bar marking anywhere on the frontage or on the gate approaches in either direction; plain asphalt throughout. Relevant stretches near the gate were clearly seen.

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 (zebra/stripes) and no refuge island at the gate or on the approaches. Undivided carriageway; pedestrians cross informally on open asphalt (seen in 1Fo0 h212). Carriageway surface at/near the gate was visible across multiple views.

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

MinimalNone

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≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The audit-pass L1 falls. Re-examining the deciding images: the raised edge it credited (8ltXbQMleBtw_h163_f90_trav.jpg, BY3CW325Kmw4_h168_f90_trav.jpg) is a row of private raised shop-front plinths / building thresholds confined to the commercial cluster, not an engineered footpath, and it does not reach the gate. The operative school-side frontage at and along the gate (BY3CW325Kmw4_h348_f90_trav.jpg, 1Fo0 gate views) is bare unpaved sandy verge with pedestrians on the shoulder/carriageway. Under the collector+/arterial raised-footpath standard, no footpath exists along most of the frontage -> L0, not a 'broken footpath' L1. Observability: reads differ >0.15 (audit 0.7 vs blind 0.85); the gap is the shop-side plinth stretch and the >60m approaches, which the audit discounted. Both frontage edges within ~40m of the gate are clearly seen; settled 0.8 (blurred near-field foreground and unviewed far approaches keep it below 0.85).

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No official school-warning traffic sign confidently identified on either approach. Green boards on the wall/gate are school NAME/identity boards, not warning signs. Yellow-diamond signs on the pole by the gate (1Fo0 gate_zoom) read as commercial admission/coaching advertising (heavy text + phone numbers), not official cautionary signage; a small blue disc sign near the gate is unresolved. No speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp seen. Flagging the yellow-diamond ambiguity for verify.

◑

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

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Green double gate is recessed in the red boundary wall behind a wide sandy forecourt/verge that provides off-carriageway assembly space (L2); the wall is a continuous barrier, so the gate does not open directly onto the carriageway. No separate pedestrian wicket resolved in the zoom views (single wide gate), no continuous rail from gate to a crossing, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay — so above L2 not supported.

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