Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideRajkiy Uchch Prathmik Vidyalay Dippura

Nindar, Rajasthan 303805, India27.03150, 75.76874audited 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

68.5points we could see (68%)

16.4%provision

1exposure — local

16.4provision × exposure

→

16SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (68% 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 N 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; 3 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 hump, table, rumble strip or any physical speed-calming device on either approach to the gate or along the lane; surface is dirt/rough concrete. Immediate gate apron partly obscured by privacy blur, but the approaches are visible with no device present.

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, table-top or refuge) anywhere in the zone; the carriageway is unpaved/rough and carries no markings. Pedestrians walk and cross on the roadway itself.

◑

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⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalMinimal

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

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (blind L0 / audit L1). Deciding images show a walkable dirt edge that EXISTS along parts of the frontage (school forecourt side, temple/right side, dirt margins) but is broken/blocked by PERMANENT causes — compound walls meeting the lane, established bougainvillea/brush encroachment and a ruined masonry structure with steps. That matches L1 ('exists but broken/blocked along most of frontage'), not L0 ('none'); local streets require a walkable edge, not a constructed footpath. Blind's L0 fell — it applied too strict a standard. Obs gap (blind 0.8 vs audit 0.6): near-gate apron is privacy-blurred and the far junction ends are open dusty areas, not lane frontage. Genuine L0/L1 boundary → MED (no HIGH requirement below L3).

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No road-traffic school-warning sign, no speed-limit sign and no 2023-identity zone asset (transition/zone-start sign, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school markings or beacon hardware) seen on either approach. The only lettering is the building name board on the school, which is not a traffic sign. MED: small signage could sit outside the captured views.

◑

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

NoneBasic

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

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (blind L2 / audit L0). Deciding image NSmlR4Fnv_C0_h072 shows the gate set BEHIND a compound wall with an open forecourt between the gate line and the lane — a clear setback giving genuine off-carriageway assembly space (L2), not a gate opening directly onto the carriageway (L0). Audit's L0 fell; its low observability (0.4 vs 0.6) reflects anchoring on the mapped-point blue-mural building (pQZWjNC7jrDA_h045) where the gate is not visible. L3/L4 withheld: no separate pedestrian opening, continuous rail to a crossing, or marked drop-off bay is confirmable, and only one clear angle exists — HIGH not met, so ceiling is L2. Final L2 at MED.

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