Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideHoly Angels Convent School

near Kul Nation, Tal Haveli, Manjari Khurd, Pune, Maharashtra 412307, India18.54578, 73.98896audited 2026-08-06

2/100

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, 4 are missing entirely.

This road · 2

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

2.5points earned

71.25points we could see (71%)

3.51%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

2.46provision × exposure

→

2SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (71% of the rubric here); the rest is left uncounted rather than guessed. A road with full protective infrastructure scores near 100.

◷

Read from 3.6-year-old imagery (captured 2023-02)

Street View here has not been refreshed since then, so the road may have changed. The score reflects what that imagery shows; this road is on the re-audit queue and will be re-read when newer imagery is available.

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 (Manjari - Wagholi Road), on its W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 9-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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed humps, tables, rumble strips or calming markings visible anywhere in the frontage zone across multiple two-directional travel and road views (EZF3ShtvuqeF_h160/h340, N2nCE03M_1xn_h162/h342, s5gdzlo9ajP2_h162/h342, road views Z5Ri/gGv0). Carriageway is plain asphalt/concrete.

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 (zebra or otherwise) and no refuge island anywhere near the gate or across the frontage. Only faint broken centre-lane dashes present in places, which are lane markings not crossings.

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

No usable walking edge; children walk in the traffic lane.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Arterial class requires raised footpath; none present on either side. Both frontage edges are unpaved earth/gravel shoulders abutting a continuous compound wall, with no raised or continuous walkable path. Pedestrians/cyclists share the carriageway and shoulder.

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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning traffic sign, no speed-limit sign, and no carriageway speed stamp visible on either approach. Roadside boards are the school name board and commercial/plot-advertising hoardings, not traffic signage.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

A little setback or partial barrier — limited space off the road.

Partial

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate is a red-pillar archway opening set within the frontage compound wall; only a minimal unpaved shoulder separates the opening from the carriageway, with no clear built setback bay or off-carriageway assembly area. No separate pedestrian opening or continuous rail gate-to-crossing observed. Best view is a single oblique travel frame (EZF3ShtvuqeF_h340).

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