Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsidePoona School and Home for Blind

14-17, Dr.S.R.Machave Road, Ragvilas Society, Koregaon Park, Pune, Maharashtra 411001, India18.53968, 73.88829audited 2026-08-06

31/100

Unsafeprovisional band

Unsafe. Very little on this road protects a child crossing to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 2 are missing entirely.

This road · 31

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

30points earned

72.5points we could see (72%)

41.4%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

31.0provision × exposure

→

31SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (72% 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 (North Main Road), on its N side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped 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 — 52/100 (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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, raised table, rumble strip or other physical speed-control device observed on the carriageway approaches near the gate. The zebra crossing at the junction appears flat/painted, not table-top. Gate approaches reasonably visible in gate-wide and road views.

◑

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

A marked crossing in the zone

A legible marked crossing is present in the school zone.

Partial

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Legible painted zebra crossing present at the junction in front of the school frontage, visible in multiple views; the raised central median could serve as a pedestrian refuge. Held at L2: crossing sits at the junction mouth roughly 20-30 m from the gate and its distance-to-gate and sound-condition qualifiers for L3 are marginal rather than clearly met.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

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

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (audit L1 vs blind L2). Deciding images: UKi0m_auIviq_h201 (2026) and RCzj2DeSh0UX_h201 (2022) both show a continuous built brick-paver footpath running along the school compound wall; 82yMIueVDGLm_h021 shows a raised paved school-side walking edge with pedestrians on it. The footpath is a permanent built surface, continuous along the school-side frontage, and present in both 2022 and 2026 captures. The audit read fell: its 'worn earthen shoulder' reading conflated the dusty near-kerb strip in the gate-approach frames with the absence of the built footpath that the traverse frames plainly show. Continuous usable footpath one side = L2; opposite arterial side not confirmed continuous, so not L3; no guard rail/bollard line, so not L4. Multi-date consistent views support HIGH.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp or 2023-identity zone asset observed on either approach. Only a blue 'padachari marg' (pedestrian path/crossing) informational sign and commercial billboards are present, which are not school-zone warning or speed signage.

◑

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

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈90%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate does not open directly onto the carriageway: a raised footpath and setback in front of the gate provide off-carriageway assembly space, with compound railing/wall flanking. No separate pedestrian wicket opening or continuous rail gate-to-crossing clearly visible in zoom, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay, so held at 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