Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideGovernment Mahatma Gandhi english medium School

Nangal Jaisabohra, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302012, India26.96719, 75.73557audited 2026-08-06

12/100

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, 3 are missing entirely.

This road · 12

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

8.75points earned

70.5points we could see (70%)

12.4%provision

1exposure — local

12.4provision × exposure

→

12SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (70% 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 S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-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 contextModerate — 22/100. 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, rumble strips or traffic-calming markings anywhere on the frontage or the two main approaches; frontage carriageway is largely bare earth. Both approaches within ~35 m of the entrance seen (18.6 m and 34.7 m traverses) and gate vicinity 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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing, zebra or refuge island anywhere; the unpaved/lightly-paved surface carries no road markings at all. Gate frontage and both approaches seen where a crossing would be expected.

◑

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⟳ 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

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit L0 fell. Both reads agree there is no constructed footpath, but the L0/L1 split turns on whether a walkable edge 'exists but broken' (L1) versus 'none / children on carriageway' (L0). In mOz1a9BFmJaS_h276_f90_trav.jpg the two pedestrians walk on a bare-earth shoulder to the side of the graded central vehicle track, not within it — an informal walkable edge that is present but broken/blocked by permanent features (tree bases with masonry platforms, temple plinth, wall-abutting stretches, embedded rubble) along most of the frontage. That is the L1 definition; the audit conflated 'not continuous' with 'none'. My blind L1 stands. Not L2 (not continuous/clear either side). Observability 0.8 (both sides of frontage and approaches seen).

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

No school-warning sign, no speed-limit sign, no zone-start/transition sign, no 2023-identity assets, no red-white school-zone carriageway markings and no beacon hardware seen on the frontage or approaches. Wall content is government health/nutrition posters and, at the far end, coaching-tuition banners; the school building name board is not a road/zone sign.

◑

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≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Both reads fell. Audit L0 ('gate opens directly onto carriageway; wall meets road margin with no setback') is refuted by JWE1snN8WS5U_h184_f90_gate_wide.jpg, which shows a broad bare-earth forecourt between the boundary wall and the traveled way — the wall does not abut a hard carriageway; the audit over-weighted the van-obstructed oQafDV crop (its 0.35 observability). But my blind L2 over-credits: the forecourt is undifferentiated informal earth shared with parking (the tempo-traveller parks flush against the wall) with no defined assembly area or railing, and no gate leaf is confirmable in any frame, so the L2 'clear off-carriageway assembly space' attribute is not established. Settled at L1 (full wall barrier plus a minimal/informal setback). Observability reconciled to 0.5: the oQafDV frontage/gate segment is largely obstructed by the parked van (low), while the JWE1 posters-wall frontage is clearly seen (high); the actual main gate leaf is not crisply resolved in any single frame, which caps the value. MED confidence; L1 requires no HIGH.

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