Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideचिंचवड बधिर मूक विद्यालय,निगडी पुणे

Sector No 26, Pradhikaran, Sindhunagar, Nigdi, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Maharashtra 411044, India18.65952, 73.76468audited 2026-08-06

32/100

Unsafeprovisional band

Unsafe. Very little on this road protects a child crossing to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 2 are missing entirely.

This road · 32

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

36.25points earned

78.25points we could see (78%)

46.3%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

32.4provision × exposure

→

32SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (78% 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 (Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg), on its W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No raised hump/table, rumble or marking-based speed device visible along the avenue approaches to the gate; crossings present are flat painted zebras only. Both avenue directions viewed but stretches beyond frame cannot be fully ruled out.

◑

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

A marked crossing in the zone

A legible marked crossing is present in the school zone.

Partial

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Legible painted zebra crossings present in the zone at the avenue junction; raised planted median provides a refuge where required. Crossing not confirmed within 20 m of the gate and no raised/signalised crossing seen, so held below L3.

✓

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

Footpaths on both sides

A continuous walking edge runs along both sides of the frontage.

Present⟳ Corrected in review

BasicGood

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

Also cited for this check

18.75 of 25 points

LevelGood (L3)

Points18.75 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Disagreement L3 (blind) vs L2 (audit) decided from the avenue travel/road frames. On the graded gate frontage and its approaches, raised paved (interlocking-paver) footpaths with kerbs, lamp posts and bollard lines are clearly present and usable on BOTH sides in multiple consistent views: iT_sDDAkSzdg_h159 and h339, 3O9I01uGB1x9_h159 and h339, gate_wide h163 and road h304. Isolated bare-earth/broken patches are localized (not 'broken along most of frontage', so not L1) and vendor/parked encroachments are momentary and excluded. The audit read fell: its L2/MED under-counted the far-side footpath and over-weighted arterial-segment frames (7-AJe243a223, 5KhI9b0c32Qm) and construction patches away from the identified gate. Both-sides continuous usable footpath is established in >=2 clear consistent views — L3 at HIGH. No continuous guard-rail/bollard separation gate->first crossing (spaced bollard line only), so not L4; both reads agree on this.

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 identifiable school-warning traffic sign, speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp visible on the frontage; roadside carries commercial hoardings and a bus-stop sign only.

◑

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

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate opens onto a paved forecourt set well back from the carriageway, with chain-link railing and bollard line giving clear off-carriageway assembly space; gate does not open directly onto the carriageway. No separate pedestrian opening or marked drop-off bay confirmed, so held at L2.

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 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.

04Lifts 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.

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