Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSharda Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School

5-8 Mayur Vihar, Nangal Jaisa Bohra Rd, Nirmal Vihar, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302012, India26.96363, 75.73924audited 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

Confirmed

Corrected

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

68.75points we could see (69%)

16.4%provision

1exposure — local

16.4provision × exposure

→

16SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (69% 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 — Satellite · © Google · retrieved 2026-08-13 (capture date not published by the imagery API)

FrontageThe gate opens onto a local street, on its S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 6-leg junction

Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)

Crash record2 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 1 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextModerate — 28/100. 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 physical speed-control device visible in the frontage zone. Two clear frontage road views in both directions (h097 east, h277 west) plus gate-wide show an unpaved dirt carriageway with no hump, table, or rumble device near the gate on either approach. Dirt surface roughness is not an engineered device. Broader-zone coverage partial (some traverse panos face side lots).

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 is unpaved dirt so painted markings are not present; no refuge, no crossing near the gate in either direction. Frontage well seen in both directions.

◑

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local street - assessed as continuous clear walkable edge. A brick-paved apron/walkway exists in front of the school building, but it is discontinuous: beyond the school frontage the edge reverts to dirt and building plinths/steps at varying levels, and along most of the street pedestrians use the dirt carriageway (people walking on carriageway in BgL68 h165). A walkable edge exists but is broken along most of the frontage = L1. Not continuous even on one side.

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

No road-safety or school-zone signage visible. The name boards and academic-result posters on the building are school advertising, not traffic signs. No school-warning sign, no speed-limit sign, and no carriageway speed stamp (dirt surface). Frontage and near approaches seen; some approaches only partially covered.

◑

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⟳ 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

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (audit L1 vs blind L2); the audit's L1 ('minimal setback') falls on the deciding gate images. A herringbone brick-paved apron/forecourt (~2-3 m deep, a motorcycle parks broadside on it with margin) runs along the school frontage between the full-width folding grille gate and the dirt carriageway, giving genuine off-carriageway assembly space - clearly visible in h236 gate_wide and gate_zoom and corroborated along-frontage in h277. Gate does not open directly onto the carriageway (excludes L0) and the setback is a clear usable forecourt rather than minimal (exceeds L1) = L2. Not L3: the folding grille is full-width with no separate pedestrian wicket resolvable in zoom, and there is no continuous rail from gate to a crossing (no crossing exists). L2 does not require HIGH, but the qualifying setback is clearly and consistently seen. Observability settled 0.7: reads differ 0.8/0.5 (>0.15) - the ~0.3 gap is on the gate's L3/L4 attributes (a separate pedestrian wicket and any >=20 m drop-off bay), seen only from a single camera position and unresolved/uncovered; the L2 assembly-space setback itself is clearly observed from two headings, supporting the higher value.

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