Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSri Sri Ravishankar Bal Mandir (SSRBM), Bavdhan, Pune

1/10/16, Plot no 16, Amchi Colony, NDA Pashan Rd, off SBI Bank, Shri Krishna Nagar, Sagar Co-Operative Housing Society, Bavdhan, Pune, Maharashtra 411021, India18.51700, 73.78153audited 2026-08-06

33/100

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 · 33

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

27.5points earned

62points we could see (62%)

44.4%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

33.3provision × exposure

→

33SSI · 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

FrontageThe gate opens onto an arterial road (Pashan-Bavdhan Road), on its NE side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 3-leg junction

Street activity6 mapped shops 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 — 54/100 (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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device visible along either approach of the frontage carriageway; road surface at gate and both road-facing views (WKKDaHaexsz0_h160/h340, mbYq9dnjM3aH_h340) shows no hump, table or rumble strip.

◑

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Legible marked zebra crossing across the near carriageway roughly at the gate (WKKDaHaexsz0_h086_f90_gate_wide; also visible in mbYq9dnjM3aH_h041 from median). Divided road so refuge required for L3+; median exists but crossing markings are partly faded and refuge/median-cut alignment at the crossing not confirmable, so held at L2.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalBasic

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

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ (blind L2, audit L1). Deciding images: mbYq9dnjM3aH_h160/h340 and WKKDaHaexsz0_h340. The audit fell: it modelled mbYq9dnjM3aH as a same-side second candidate and declared the opposite carriageway side 'not assessable', but mbYq9dnjM3aH is the OPPOSITE-side pano and clearly shows a continuous raised interlocking-block footpath running along that side (vendor truck on it is momentary, ignored). The school-side gate frontage is a bare dirt gap (WKKDaHaexsz0_h086), which prevents L3 (both sides), but one side is continuous and usable, satisfying L2. Arterial raised-footpath requirement met on that side.

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-warning traffic sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp or 2023-identity zone asset observed on either approach. School name/identity boards at the gate are not traffic-warning signage; other roadside signage is a bus-stop marker, a directional sign and commercial hoardings.

◑

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

Metal double swing gate opens onto an informal unpaved dirt setback strip carrying signboards/hoarding before the carriageway — a minimal setback rather than a clear designated off-carriageway assembly space, and no railing. No separate pedestrian opening or continuous rail visible.

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