Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideFoundree Preschool & Daycare - Wakad, Pune

Datta Mandir Rd, Postal Colony, Shankar Kalat Nagar, Wakad, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Maharashtra 411057, India18.60022, 73.76368audited 2026-08-06

5/100

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 · 5

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

5points earned

69.25points we could see (69%)

7.2%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

5.4provision × exposure

→

5SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (69% 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

FrontageThe gate opens onto an arterial road (Datta Mandir Road), on its W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

Street activity10 mapped shops within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)

Crash recordcrash-location data is not yet available for Delhi — this line will be added when a public source lands

Exposure contextElevated — 59/100 (partial: no crash component yet). 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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed humps, tables, rumble strips or road markings for speed control seen anywhere on the arterial frontage across multiple clear views. The central median is a divider, not a speed-control device. No raised table at the gate.

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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra or otherwise) visible on the arterial frontage in any view, including the stretch nearest the gate. The concrete median is continuous with no cut or crossing point observed near the entrance.

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Disagreement decided by the road-facing and travelling frontage views (cNoBGcp46UZm_h078, lQGJ7M7NtNrI_h078, 95Fs4ihE4JeE_h257) and the school-side gate_wide. Arterial (collector+) requires a raised footpath. None exists anywhere along the frontage: the school side is an open dirt plot and the frontage is predominantly bare dirt/rubble with pedestrians at the carriageway edge. The paved sections the audit read as a broken footpath are at-grade private building aprons/thresholds (in front of some shopfronts and the eye-hospital building), not a raised or continuous footpath. Audit's L1 falls; L0 confirmed.

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-zone warning signs, speed-limit signs, carriageway speed stamps or any 2023-identity zone assets observed on either approach of the frontage. No signage of any kind identifying a school zone visible.

◑

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≈95%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Disagreement decided by the two gate pairs (cNoBGcp46UZm_h254 zoom+wide, lQGJ7M7NtNrI_h255 zoom+wide). The gate does not open onto the carriageway: a large open unpaved plot separates the building line from the divided arterial, giving clear off-carriageway assembly space (L2). The audit's 'directly on the arterial frontage / shallow paved threshold / partial barrier' (L1) understates the visible setback. L3 tested and failed: no separate pedestrian opening in zoom and no continuous rail from gate to a crossing (the plot is open, used informally for parking). Audit's L1 falls; final 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

2026-08-06Audited

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