Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideJ P Global School

94,Hanuman vatika,near GDC club,200fit by pass, Ajmer Rd, Rajni Vihar, Heerawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021, India26.89086, 75.73386audited 2026-08-08

10/100

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 · 10

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

6.25points earned

64.5points we could see (64%)

9.7%provision

1exposure — local

9.7provision × exposure

→

10SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (64% 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 record12 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 7 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 hump, table, rumble strip or calming marking seen on any approach, including the frontage in front of the gate (road-axis views both directions). Immediate near-gate surface partly hidden by the pano nadir blur and a parked car, so not full observability. Illegible yellow diamond warning signs stand further along the lane (pGkpBxg pano) but no physical device is visible.

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 pedestrian crossing (zebra or otherwise) anywhere in the zone; frontage and approaches are undivided and largely bare-earth surfaces on which markings do not exist. Carriageway is single, undivided (<=2 lanes), so no refuge question arises. Near-gate surface partly obscured by nadir blur and parked vehicles.

◑

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local street: assessed continuous clear walkable edge. No raised or continuous footpath either side. Edges are predominantly bare dirt shoulders interrupted by intermittent private paved house plinths/forecourts (herringbone tiles, raised shop verandah), drains, trees and level changes between properties; walkable surface exists only in discontinuous patches along most of the frontage, so pedestrians frequently share the carriageway. Broken/discontinuous permanent condition = L1, not a continuous usable one-side path.

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≈55%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No confirmable school warning sign, no speed-limit sign, no 2023-identity asset identified. Two yellow diamond warning signs stand on poles mid-lane (pGkpBxg pano) but their faces are not legible at available resolution, so they cannot be credited as school warnings (could be junction/hump warnings). Outer stretch (QFH8 pano) shows commercial/coaching banners and a black directional arrow, not zone signage. Unidentifiable-face signs are not awarded.

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

The gate opens onto the road

Children step from the gate straight toward moving traffic.

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 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceLow

Coverage seen≈30%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (blind L1 / audit L0); deciding images re-examined are the four gate views. L1 requires affirmatively observing a minimal setback or partial barrier at the gate. In xyrBJ8YZVHX6 the teal gate's base and the wall-to-lane strip are occluded by a large foreground tree and a car parked hard against the frontage, and the lane is an undelineated unpaved surface with no visible buffer between the gate line and the driving surface; the gate_zoom frames the wall murals above, not the ground-level setback. The second pano lVFlVwGaaUf (~35 m) shows a different, set-back white property, not this gate's frontage, so it cannot corroborate a setback here. The blind read's L1 rested on an inferred 'minimal unpaved setback' it itself graded LOW confidence; award of the higher level is not supported by affirmative evidence (unseen != present), so the final defaults to L0. The blind read fell. Observability settled 0.3 between blind 0.5 and audit 0.2: the wall face above is visible but the ground-level setback that decides L0/L1 is occluded. 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

2026-08-08Audited

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