Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideTalent Public Sr. Sec. School

Green Town, Benad Rd, Dadi Ka Phatak, Anand Vihar, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302012, India26.96695, 75.74898audited 2026-08-08

13/100

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 · 13

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

8.75points earned

68.75points we could see (69%)

12.7%provision

1exposure — local

12.7provision × exposure

→

13SSI · 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 N side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

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

Crash record2 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 5 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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed humps, tables, rumble strips or thermoplastic bumps visible on any approach. Gate approaches seen in both directions along the frontage (h036 NE toward gate, h216 SW) are flat with no devices; adjoining lanes also flat. No raised table/crossing at the gate.

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≈72%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossings, zebra markings or refuge islands anywhere. The interlock-paved frontage and dirt/paved lanes carry no road markings at all. Near-gate frontage seen clearly with no crossing.

◑

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

NoneMinimal

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≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (audit L0 vs blind L1). Deciding image CM_nVbLMcyo5_h130_f90_gate_wide.jpg shows a distinct paved apron with a decorative black-and-white kerb running along the school frontage — a walkable edge that plainly EXISTS, which refutes L0 ('none'). CM_nVbLMcyo5_h036_f90_road.jpg shows that same apron broken by a planted palm-tree pit and merging flush into the shared carriageway (two pedestrians walking on the carriageway), and the adjoining lanes (2ryyFNhF8gYo h058, travel views) show only discontinuous private-frontage aprons. So the edge exists but is broken/discontinuous along most of the frontage: L1, not the continuous one-sided edge of L2. Corrected; the audit read (L0) fell — it treated the visible paved frontage apron as absent. MED confidence: the surface is flush/shared and the foreground is privacy-blurred.

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 school-zone warning signs, speed-limit signs, carriageway speed stamps, or 2023-identity assets (no fluorescent yellow-green faces, zone-start/transition signs, red-white school-zone markings, or beacon hardware) visible on the gate approaches or on any observed pole. Signboards present are institute name/notice boards ('Ocean Academy' pole text; school result posters), 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

Also cited for this check

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈55%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Built form: mural boundary wall with railing on top and a gate set into it; the gate discharges onto the shared interlock-paved frontage with only a shallow apron and no clearly demarcated off-carriageway assembly space (apron blends into the carriageway; interrupted by tree pits). Minimal setback/partial barrier -> L1. Exact gate leaf and its immediate discharge partly obscured by a planted palm.

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