Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideAll Saints' High School

Old Mumbai Rd, Khadki, Maharashtra 411003, India18.55858, 73.84618audited 2026-08-06

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.

15points earned

64.5points we could see (64%)

23.3%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

16.3provision × exposure

→

16SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (64% 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 (Breman Chowk - Khadki Bazar Road), on its W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

Street activity1 mapped shop 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

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 seen along the frontage or approaches: no speed hump, raised table, rumble strip, or calming markings on the visible carriageway surface across multiple frontage/junction views. Road surface is smooth asphalt.

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing visible near the gate or at the adjacent junction; no zebra or transverse crossing markings on the frontage carriageway in any usable view. Undivided carriageway with no refuge island observed.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

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

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Corrected; audit's L1 fell. On a collector+/arterial road L2 needs a continuous usable raised footpath on ONE side. A good-condition raised footpath (paver blocks / stone-masonry retaining edge with metal railing) runs continuously on the non-school side across multiple in-zone views (jTHctKkK5JVj_h304, YaEbkOkpKt4F_h176 left edge, C3hO_h084). The audit downgraded to L1 by treating the school-side gate frontage as the whole frontage, but that dirt-shoulder gap is on the school side only. The blind's L2 level is correct, though its 'school-side continuous' attribution is imprecise: the school-side Church Road pink-wall frontage is in fact a bare earthen shoulder (YHTsFfXmZrKr_h243, 2022) / fragmentary raised strip (DXEI_h321, 2024). L3 (both sides) therefore fails. Confidence MED not HIGH because single-side continuity across the full 141 m rests on discrete panoramas rather than an unbroken trace (L2 permitted at MED).

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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No road school-warning sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp, or 2023-identity zone asset (fluorescent yellow-green faces, zone-start/transition sign, red-white school-zone markings, beacon hardware) observed. Only navigational blue street-name/directional signs (e.g. 'Church Road') and the school's own name board on the compound, which do not qualify.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

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

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

NoneMinimal

An independent second reader changed this — the two readings disagreed, and the evidence below settled it.

Also cited for this check

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈45%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Corrected; both reads fell. The gate leaf/opening is occluded by queued school buses and roadside trees in every view, but the frontage setback IS visible: the compound wall stands set back from the carriageway with a strip in front (bare earthen shoulder in YHTsFfXmZrKr_h243, 2022; a fragmentary raised concrete plinth in DXEI_h321, 2024). That visibly rules out audit L0 ('opens directly onto carriageway') -- the wall does not sit flush to the asphalt, and scoring L0 asserted a built condition the audit itself could not see. It equally does not support blind L2 ('clear setback or railing giving off-carriageway assembly space'): what is seen is a narrow, mostly dirt shoulder, not a confirmed generous assembly setback, and the gate opening/any separate pedestrian gate is not in frame. Minimal setback = L1. Observability settled at 0.45 (blind 0.6 vs audit 0.35): the reduction over the frontage-visible reads is driven by the gate-opening/pedestrian-gate segment being occluded by the parked buses and trees, while the wall-setback frontage itself is seen in two panoramas.

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