Crashfree India School Safety Index DELHI · JAIPUR · PUNE

Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideAll Best Children's Sec. School

Opp. Shekhawati Nagar, Near Hotel Aapni Dhani, Road Number 14, Sikar Rd, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302013, India27.00026, 75.76675audited 2026-08-08
10/100
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 · 10
0 · no protectioncomplete protection · 100
Checked twice, independently
Two AI readers on separate accounts · corrections logged in public
4
Confirmed
1
Corrected
0
Unresolved
See how each was judged
Of 153 roads scored so far, this one ranks 72 (worst first). The others scored between 0 and 41.
7.5points earned
/
78.25points we could see (78%)
=
9.6%provision
×
1exposure — local
=
9.6provision × exposure
→
10SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (78% 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 W side
Junctionthe gate area sits at a 6-leg junction
Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)
Crash record1 road death 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 — 25/100. 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≈80%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No physical speed control of any kind visible - no hump, table, rumble strip or thermoplastic bar marking - on the north approach (P5_XsZV-yZMl_h352_f90_road), the south approach (P5_XsZV-yZMl_h172_f90_road, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h186_f90_road, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h006_f90_road), at the gate frontage (P5_XsZV-yZMl_h230_f90_gate_wide, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h334_f90_gate_wide), or across the zone (58MtoXHHNxjM, N54vOlFYAFBU, 5Gl54zNVDYRc traverses). Plain undivided local street; the dusty patch directly at the gate is not a raised device. Observability <1 because near-camera foreground is privacy-blurred in most frames.

✕
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≈80%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No pedestrian crossing anywhere - no zebra, no table-top, no faded remnant, no markings - at the gate frontage or on either approach. Road surface at the gate is plain dusty asphalt (P5_XsZV-yZMl_h230_f90_gate_wide, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h334_f90_gate_wide) and the approaches show no markings (P5_XsZV-yZMl_h352_f90_road, P5_XsZV-yZMl_h172_f90_road, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h186_f90_road). Near-field foreground blur only, so a crossing would still be visible if present.

✕
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
NoneNone

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≈75%
VerificationCorrected in the second reading
The full reasoning

Reads differ (audit L0 / blind L1); blind read fell. Its L1 rested on a 'raised tiled apron/plinth' as walkable built form, but on re-examination that tiled forecourt sits behind the picket railing - private school property, not a public road-edge footpath. Stripping it, the frontage and both approaches show no defined/clear walkable edge: unpaved earthen margins merging into the carriageway, private walls/plinths/shops meeting the road, and pedestrians walking on the carriageway in three frames (P5_XsZV-yZMl_h172, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h186, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h006). Undifferentiated earthen roadside does not establish a walkable edge -> audit L0 stands. final_level 0.

◑
Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

One school-warning sign

A single school-warning sign — not the full set.

Partial
Also cited for this check
2.5 of 10 points
LevelMinimal (L1)
Points2.5 of 10
ConfidenceMed
Coverage seen≈65%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

One legible school warning sign confirmed: a green 'GO-SLOW SCHOOL ZONE' board on a pole at the frontage on the south/west side (lrWF8L6lHDpm_h334_f90_gate_wide and the zoom lrWF8L6lHDpm_h334_f35_gate_zoom). No school warning sign confirmed on the north approach - P5_XsZV-yZMl_h352_f90_road and lrWF8L6lHDpm_h006_f90_road show only commercial/coaching boards amid heavy pole clutter - so not 'both approaches'. No numeric speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp seen (no value to record), and no 2023-identity asset (no fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, transition/zone-start sign or beacon hardware). -> L1.

◑
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
Also cited for this check
5 of 10 points
LevelBasic (L2)
Points5 of 10
ConfidenceHigh
Coverage seen≈90%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

Built form: a continuous metal picket railing runs along the frontage with a central gate; behind the railing is a raised tiled forecourt with potted plants and a step up to the building entrance, giving clear off-carriageway assembly space (P5_XsZV-yZMl_h230_f90_gate_wide, P5_XsZV-yZMl_h230_f35_gate_zoom, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h334_f90_gate_wide, lrWF8L6lHDpm_h334_f35_gate_zoom) -> at least L2. A distinct separate pedestrian opening could not be confirmed in zoom and there is no crossing for a rail to run to, so L3 not awarded. Setback depth is modest but the railing barrier and forecourt are unambiguous. -> 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