Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideZilha Parishad School Khadakwasla

16, Sinhgad Rd, Khadakwasla Village, Khadakwasla, Pune, Maharashtra 411024, India18.43871, 73.77406audited 2026-08-06

11/100

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 · 11

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

11.25points earned

70points we could see (70%)

16.1%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

11.2provision × exposure

→

11SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (70% 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 (Khadakwasla Village Bypass Road), on its N side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 7-leg junction

Street activity1 bus stop 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 — 57/100 (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

0 of 30 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 30

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, table, rumble strip or markings-only device seen along the frontage or either visible approach. A raised concrete drainage culvert/apron crosses the road near the frontage (eezB-B-U5scA_h109, O97uUzjmsYJU_h086) but is a drainage structure, not a traffic-calming device. Frontage and both approaches reasonably visible.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.

Absent

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No legible marked pedestrian crossing (zebra or otherwise) visible on the frontage carriageway or approaches across multiple clear views. Road surface plainly asphalt with lane centre-line only in places.

◑

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

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No continuous raised footpath. School (building) side has compound wall abutting a narrow dirt/weed verge directly at the carriageway edge. Opposite (hill) side has a partial raised concrete kerb/covered-drain ledge that is discontinuous, broken by drain openings and vegetation and not continuously walkable. Best fit: a walkable edge exists but is broken along most of the frontage; pedestrians default to carriageway edge.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school warning sign confirmable at the frontage. Pole-mounted signs seen at zone edges (a blue informatory-type sign in 9wJLwZ16SQGz_h188; a small circular/pole sign in jlTxD4Bj8x3L_h287) are not resolvable as school-warning or speed-limit assets. No compliant speed sign or 2023 zone-identity asset visible. LOW confidence -> lower candidate level.

◑

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.

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit's L0 falls. The building frontage is set back from the through-carriageway behind a paved forecourt/apron on which multiple full-size buses stand off the carriageway, visible consistently in h086, h266 and h312 (built hardstanding, not a mere shoulder) - a clear setback giving off-carriageway assembly space, i.e. L2. The audit scored L0 (obs 0.25) using only the vehicle-blocked gate_zoom/gate_wide pair and missed the forecourt shown in the road frames it did not use for P5; unseen != absent does not apply because the setback IS seen. Capped at L2: the gate leaf is occluded by parked buses, no separate pedestrian opening is resolvable and there is no continuous rail gate-to-crossing, and L3 would require HIGH confidence in any case. The parked buses are momentary and are not the basis for the level; the built setback/apron is. Observability settled at 0.6 - the frontage setback is well seen across three views, the exact gate opening is occluded.

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