Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideParanjape Nursery School

Karve Chowk, DP Rd, Londhe Wada, Azad Nagar, Kothrud, Pune, Maharashtra 411038, India18.50173, 73.80877audited 2026-08-06

34/100

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 · 34

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

30points earned

66points we could see (66%)

45.5%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

34.1provision × exposure

→

34SSI · 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 (DP Road), on its S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 8-leg junction

Street activity4 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 — 55/100 (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

0 of 30 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 30

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Carriageway asphalt appears smooth and continuous in both directions across frontage and traverse views; no speed hump, table, rumble strip or raised crossing visible in the zone or at gate approaches. No physical speed-control device seen.

◑

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Built median provides a refuge along the frontage. A legible marked (zebra) crossing is visible at the junction/chowk toward the end of the zone, but no marked pedestrian crossing exists on the carriageway directly at or within 20 m of the gate. Divided carriageway (>=2 lanes/direction) so refuge required for L3+.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

Partial

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Raised paved footpath / forecourt runs along the school frontage, walkable and generally continuous (permanent surface; parked vehicles are momentary and not scored). Opposite side and down-road edges also show raised footpath, but views are partly occluded so both-sides continuity is not HIGH-confidence. No dedicated guard-rail/bollard separation between footpath and carriageway from gate to a crossing.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

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 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Disagreement decided by the two gate-zoom frames (p-zAmSXihEar_h198_f35 and Ui-pPU_ftJQ0_h142_f35) and the p-zAmSXihEar road frame. Both frontage signs are red-circle NO PARKING prohibitory/regulatory signs (slashed 'P'), one captioned NO PARKING ... SCHOOL. P4 L1 requires 'one school warning sign' (a hazard/caution sign warning of the school/children); a parking-prohibition sign that merely mentions the school is not a warning sign. No triangular school-warning sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp, or 2023-identity asset is visible on the gate approaches. The blind read's L1 fell: it credited a regulatory sign as school-zone identity. Final L0. Coverage of the gate approaches is adequate, but tree canopy elsewhere keeps confidence at MED.

◑

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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate does not open directly onto the carriageway; a substantial paved forecourt setback fronts the school with a continuous fence/railing along the road edge, giving clear off-carriageway assembly space. A separate dedicated pedestrian opening distinct from vehicle gates could not be confirmed at zoom resolution, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay is visible.

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