Crashfree India School Safety Index DELHI · JAIPUR · PUNE

Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSweet Red Rose senior secondary school

Ajmer Rd, near Chitrakoo, Vikas Nagar, Heerapura, Heerawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021, India26.89206, 75.73036audited 2026-08-08
16/100
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 · 16
0 · no protectioncomplete protection · 100
Checked twice, independently
Two AI readers on separate accounts · corrections logged in public
5
Confirmed
0
Corrected
0
Unresolved
See how each was judged
Of 153 roads scored so far, this one ranks 117 (worst first). The others scored between 0 and 41.
11.25points earned
/
69.5points we could see (70%)
=
16.2%provision
×
1exposure — local
=
16.2provision × exposure
→
16SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (70% 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© Google
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 4-leg junction
Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)
Crash record9 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 6 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)
Exposure contextElevated — 51/100. 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≈70%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No speed-calming device (hump, table, rumble strip or raised crossing) visible on the gate frontage or on either usable approach; carriageways at and near the gate are unpaved earth. Immediate gate carriageway is partly obscured by privacy blur and parked two-wheelers, hence MED confidence rather than higher.

✕
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≈70%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing anywhere in view. Frontage and approach carriageways are unpaved earth, so no crossing markings are present where the surface is visible.

◑
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
Also cited for this check
6.25 of 25 points
LevelMinimal (L1)
Points6.25 of 25
ConfidenceHigh
Coverage seen≈70%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

Local-street walkable edge is fragmentary. A paved interlocking-tile forecourt fronts the school frontage and the veranda building, and some shop plinths are paved, but paving is discontinuous - interrupted by earthen carriageway edges, driveways and level changes along most of the frontage - with no continuous usable edge on either side; pedestrians and auto-rickshaws share the earthen carriageway. (An adjacent plot is under demolition with rubble - a current, non-permanent break - but the discontinuity persists on permanent grounds.) L1: edge exists but broken/blocked along most of frontage.

✕
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≈70%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

Only the school's own name boards/banners (Sweet Red Rose / Red Rose International) and a directional/name board are present. No road-traffic school-warning sign, no speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp, and no named 2023-identity zone assets (transition/zone-start sign, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, beacon hardware) visible on the frontage or approaches.

◑
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≈65%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

Built form shows a clear setback: a deep paved interlocking-tile forecourt between the boundary/banner and the carriageway (currently used for two-wheeler parking) plus a set-back veranda entrance with a low frontage rail - off-carriageway assembly space (L2). No crisp gate-leaf zoom is available (manifest gate-tagged shots framed the wrong facades), so a separate pedestrian wicket cannot be confirmed; no continuous rail gate-to-crossing and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay observed, so L3+ not awarded.

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