Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideShashi Public Senior Secondary School

A-35, DDA Flats Road, Main Mandoli Rd, near M. S. Park, Dda Market, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi, 110032, India28.68412, 77.29790audited 2026-08-06

4/100

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, 4 are missing entirely.

This road · 4

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

2.5points earned

69.6points we could see (70%)

3.6%provision

1exposure — local

3.6provision × exposure

→

4SSI · 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

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 S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 3-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 contextLow — 17/100 (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≈72%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, table, or rumble strip visible on the carriageway at the gate or along the frontage in multiple consistent views; wider zone-edge road also plain asphalt. Immediate gate carriageway partly obscured by Google privacy blur.

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≈68%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing and no refuge visible at the gate, along the frontage, or on the zone-edge road; carriageway is plain asphalt with no markings. Immediate gate crossing point partly under foreground blur, but surrounding carriageway is clearly visible with no remnant markings.

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

No usable walking edge; children walk in the traffic lane.

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 footpath on the narrow local street and no continuous clear walkable edge. South frontage is a wall base meeting the carriageway directly; north frontage is shopfronts/building edges at the road. Uniformed children are repeatedly walking in the carriageway. Permanent condition assessed with parked vehicles/carts excluded.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent⟳ Corrected in review

BasicNone

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

Also cited for this check

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit read fell. The features it credited (pole-mounted 'Shashi Public Sr. Sec. School' name board, CBSE-affiliation/admission wall banner, overhead blue name gantry, and the vertical fascia name sign) are school NAME/identity/advertising boards, not 'school warning signs' as L1/L2 require. The audit's own note concedes 'No dedicated regulatory/pictogram school-warning sign... was observed anywhere in the zone,' which by definition precludes L1 and L2. No speed-limit sign, no carriageway speed stamp, and no named 2023-identity asset (transition/zone-start sign, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, beacon) is present. Final L0. MED confidence reflects residual chance a small warning sign is occluded in the cluttered board environment, but no qualifying asset is evidenced on either approach. Observability close (audit 0.80, blind 0.70); settled 0.75.

◑

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Scored on the clearest identified entrance (north-side building doorway): steps up from the street with flanking handrails give a minimal setback/partial barrier, but no real off-carriageway assembly forecourt, no separate pedestrian opening visible, no continuous rail gate-to-crossing, and no drop-off bay. Play-school frontage further west shows some railing/setback but is not the main senior-secondary entrance. Primary vehicular gate on the mapped south boundary wall not clearly captured.

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