Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideKimaya international pre school

Bad ke Balaji, Road, Delhi - Ajmer Hwy, opposite Jain Temple, Theekariya, Rajasthan 302026, India26.85224, 75.63179audited 2026-08-08

14/100

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 · 14

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

11.25points earned

83.25points we could see (83%)

13.5%provision

1exposure — local

13.5provision × exposure

→

14SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (83% 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 E side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-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≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed humps, tables, rumble strips or raised crossings visible anywhere in the zone. Flat asphalt carriageway on both approaches (near 24-37 m and far 141-143 m panos, both capture dates) and an unpaved sandy forecourt at the gate. No device within 30 m of the gate on any approach.

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≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing at the gate or on either approach. Immediate gate frontage is unpaved sand (no markings possible); paved carriageway carries only a dashed centre-line at the SE end (lane marking, not a crossing). A faint lighter transverse band far toward the school in one 141 m view is too indistinct to confirm as a crossing versus a surface patch, so not scored.

◑

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

MinimalMinimal

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

Blind read fell. It scored L0 by requiring a built footpath, but for a LOCAL street P3 credits a continuous clear walkable EDGE, and L1 explicitly covers an edge that exists but is broken/blocked. Both paved approaches carry wide unpaved sandy shoulders that are walkable yet interrupted along most of the frontage by permanent causes (power poles, scrub/vegetation, uneven unpaved surface, construction debris, plot driveways); pedestrians/cyclists are seen using the shoulder rather than forced into the lane, so this is not L0. Not continuous/usable, so not L2. Settle L1.

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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No regulatory school-zone warning sign or speed-limit sign attributable to this zone identified on either approach. Roadside boards present are commercial billboards/directional hoardings (other schools e.g. Subodh Global / Mahaveer Public, and property firms). No speed-limit value observed; no 2023-identity zone assets. Some distant boards unreadable, hence MED.

◑

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≈85%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit read fell. Built form shows more than a minimal setback: the blue metal railing gate is set behind a boundary with a tiled apron at the threshold and opens onto a deep, wide unpaved sandy forecourt held well back from the paved carriageway, giving genuine off-carriageway assembly space = L2. The parked car and scooter on the forecourt are momentary and do not affect the built-form reading. Not L3: no separately resolvable pedestrian wicket in the zoom and no continuous rail from gate to a crossing (and no crossing exists). Gate seen in two panoramas (wide + zoom + road view), so HIGH. Settle L2.

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