Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideNutan Public Senior Secondary School

XV29+WW9, Radha Vihar Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302027, India26.95164, 75.86662audited 2026-08-09

0/100

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, 5 are missing entirely.

This road · 0

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

0points earned

62.5points we could see (62%)

0.0%provision

1exposure — local

0.0provision × exposure

→

0SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (62% 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 E 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; 2 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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed-control device seen. Both gate-lane approaches (qoQnS h167 toward the bazaar, qoQnS h347 and eOi01 h347 toward the residential gully) show a plain shared surface with no speed hump, table, rumble strip or markings. The connecting bazaar road (efIxYs0xoV8c h122/h302) shows asphalt without visible humps/tables at the frames provided. Full 150 m zone not sampled, so absence is asserted only for the visible approaches and frontage.

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra/painted or raised) visible anywhere: not at the gate lane, not on the connecting bazaar street (efIxYs0xoV8c h122/h302), not on the residential gullies. Road surfaces at the gate and bazaar are legible enough to assert no crossing where seen; peripheral stretches unsampled.

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

Local street assessed for a continuous clear walkable edge. Frontage lane at the gate is a narrow shared-surface gully with no dedicated footpath; pedestrians share the carriageway with vehicles. Residential lanes (3HxNevjECg2B, TbE2, eOi01 h347) are likewise unpaved/paved shared surfaces without footpaths. The bazaar street has only intermittent raised shop plinths, not a continuous walkable footpath. Permanent built condition only (parked vehicles/carts ignored). No continuous separated walkable edge exists.

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No road-safety signage identified: no school-warning sign, no legible speed-limit sign, no 2023-identity zone asset (transition sign, zone-start, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, beacon hardware). The wall name boards are the school's own identity signage, not road signage. A small circular disc on a wall at the far zone edge (TbE2 h165) was not legible and does not qualify. Signage could exist on unsampled stretches; asserted absent only where seen.

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

The gate opens onto the road

Children step from the gate straight toward moving traffic.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceLow

Coverage seen≈45%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Built form only. The school boundary wall abuts the narrow shared-surface lane directly, with no evident off-carriageway setback, forecourt or assembly space; only a small plinth/step at the wall base. No separate pedestrian opening or continuous gate-to-crossing rail resolved. The exact gate leaf is not crisply visible, so observability is low; on what is visible the frontage opens essentially onto the lane. LOW confidence -> lower candidate level.

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

2026-08-09Audited

2027-02-09Re-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