Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideVishnu Vidhya Niketan Sr. Sec. School

Sikar Road Nindad, 2QJ8+MGR, Jaipur, Nindar, Rajasthan 302048, India27.03175, 75.76628audited 2026-08-08

6/100

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 · 6

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

5points earned

77.85points we could see (78%)

6.4%provision

1exposure — local

6.4provision × exposure

→

6SSI · 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 N side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 6-leg junction

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

Crash record2 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 — 28/100. 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≈78%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control devices seen anywhere in the observed zone: no humps, tables, rumble strips, or speed markings on the frontage or along the lane. Frontage and both near-gate approaches (h103/h283 from both ~22 m panos) plus 28 m and 46 m traverse and both far ends visible; mid-zone (~46-171 m) not imaged. L0.

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≈78%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra/table-top/signalised) and no refuge anywhere in view; the earthen/rough lane carries no road markings at all. Near-gate approaches within 20 m clearly seen from two panos. L0.

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≈75%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Differ (audit L1 vs blind L0). Deciding images: frontage both directions (2 panos) plus four traverse points spanning the zone. Every segment shows the school boundary wall abutting the lane directly with no margin and vacant plots opposite; there is no constructed footpath and no continuous clear walkable edge. The only margins are undeveloped dirt verges with weeds/debris beside empty plots (discontinuous, not a path) and a battered wall-footing plinth (jUNvkTfcNcg-_h112) that is not walkable. L1 requires a walkable edge that exists-but-broken; none exists here, so the audit read fell. Pedestrians share the carriageway = L0. Well covered and uniform across views, so HIGH not MED. Observability settled 0.75: frontage and both near approaches well imaged from two panos, but continuity of far verges / mid-zone only partially captured (this segment gap accounts for the blind 0.8 vs audit 0.6 spread).

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≈72%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No traffic signage: no school-warning signs, no speed-limit signs, no zone-identity/2023 assets or beacon hardware seen on either approach. Only the school's own name board and advertisement/coaching banners on roadside walls, which do not count. L0.

◑

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⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalBasic

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

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈90%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Differ (audit L1 vs blind L2). Deciding images: the four gate wide+zoom views from two panos. They consistently show a continuous masonry boundary wall with decorative arched parapet running along the frontage and the blue pedestrian gate opening onto a substantial tiled forecourt/courtyard with landscaping. That is a clear setback giving off-carriageway assembly space (L2), well beyond L1's 'minimal setback/partial barrier'; the audit read fell. Not L3: no separate pedestrian opening distinct from the gate is resolvable, and there is no crossing to rail toward (P2 = L0). Two consistent panos with zoom, so 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

2026-08-08Audited

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