Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideModern High School & Junior College

Pashan Road, Shivaji Nagar, GRRH+MCX, Armament Colony, Pashan, Pune, Maharashtra 411016, India18.54175, 73.82859audited 2026-08-06

9/100

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 · 9

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

8.75points earned

66.5points we could see (66%)

13.2%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

9.2provision × exposure

→

9SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (66% 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 (Dr. Homi Bhabha Marg), on its S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

Street activity3 bus stops · 1 mapped shop 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 — 60/100 (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 vertical speed-control devices (humps, tables, rumble strips) visible on the gate approach or along the visible frontage. Ground immediately in front of the gate is rough/unpaved with no table. Signalised junction is present but that is not a P1 device.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.

Absent

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

A pedestrian traffic-signal head (showing red) is present at the junction near the gate, but no legible painted/marked crossing (zebra or stop line) can be confirmed on the carriageway surface; road surface is partly obscured/privacy-masked in foreground. No marked crossing near the gate observed. This is a wide multi-lane arterial where a refuge would be required for any L3+ credit. Scored conservatively at L0 given no confirmable markings.

◑

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

BasicMinimal

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≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The reads differ (audit L2 continuous-one-side vs blind L1 broken). Deciding images: at the gate frontage, three consistent views (4YEWjPMQequq gate_zoom h215/f35, gate_wide h215/f90, road h173) show rough unpaved dirt-and-rubble ground with a student walking on the bare edge and no paved footpath across the whole gate frontage. Elsewhere a raised paved kerbed footpath with a storm-drain grate does exist on the school side (krKjztJHWoaZ h185) and a kerbed railed edge appears farther along (17F46KhwkXjS h342). The break at the gate is a permanent condition (unpaved ground, not a parked-vehicle block) and sits at the safety-critical entrance, so the 'continuous usable, one side' requirement for L2 is not met. The audit's read falls: it dismissed the gate gap as a 'short patch not affecting most of the frontage', but the imagery shows the footpath genuinely interrupted at the gate. Final L1. Observability gap (blind 0.8 vs audit 0.5, >0.15) is accounted for by the gate-frontage segment and the 17F46 railing segment, which the audit treated as unassessable (its 0.5 reflects only the Swachh-wall stretch) but the blind and this adjudication read directly; opposite (flyover) side is a jersey-barrier wall with no footpath and rules out any L3 both-sides credit regardless.

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning signs, speed-limit signs, or 2023-identity zone assets observed on the visible poles or wall at the frontage. Wall carries G20 and Swachh Survekshan murals only, which are not traffic signage. A signalised junction exists but no school-zone signage or speed stamp is visible.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

A little setback or partial barrier — limited space off the road.

Partial

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate is a wide metal grille in a low compound wall with a modest rough unpaved apron between gate and carriageway; some minimal setback exists but it is informal unpaved ground rather than a defined off-carriageway assembly area with railing. No separate marked pedestrian opening or continuous rail to a crossing observed. Minimal setback = L1.

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