Crashfree India School Safety Index DELHI · JAIPUR · PUNE

Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideArjun Public Sr. Sec. School

XQX9+Q3X, Sikar Rd, Choudary Colony, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302013, India26.99950, 75.76772audited 2026-08-09
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
4
Confirmed
1
Corrected
0
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
/
67.5points we could see (68%)
=
3.7%provision
×
1exposure — local
=
3.7provision × exposure
→
4SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (68% 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© Google
Satellite · © Google · retrieved 2026-08-13 (capture date not published by the imagery API)
FrontageThe gate opens onto a local street, on its N 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; 3 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≈70%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device visible in the zone. Near-gate carriageway on both approaches (road_axis ~49 NE and ~229 SW) is visible in Gpgzhl0nN7h4 and v-MEW2qV2PuN road views: no speed hump, no raised table, no rumble strip, no thermoplastic bar markings. Surface is bare dusty concrete with no markings of any kind; traversal views out to ~178 m show none either. Immediate gate foreground is camera-blurred, hence observability 0.7 rather than higher.

✕
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≈70%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing anywhere at or near the gate. The carriageway carries no paint markings at all (bare dusty concrete), so no zebra/ladder crossing and no refuge. Both near-gate approaches are visible across two gate panos. Undivided ~2-lane local street; refuge not applicable. Absence is observed, not merely unseen.

✕
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 continuous clear walkable edge along the frontage. Permanent built condition: compound walls/building faces meet the carriageway directly, with bare-earth/dirt margins (v-MEW2qV2PuN_h229, dKkZQkLoQUM0_h351) and intermittent private raised plinths/brick forecourts interrupted by gates and level changes (g9TEELb0mnvH_h187) - not a public footpath. Pedestrians are observed walking on the carriageway (eyamZL4rpWKW_h275, v-MEW2qV2PuN_h015). No raised footpath on either side; no separation.

✕
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≈65%
VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed
The full reasoning

No road school-zone warning sign and no speed-limit sign identifiable on any approach. The visible 'Arjun Public Sr. Sec. School' board is the school's own name board, not a road-authority warning/speed asset, so it earns no P4 credit. Small pole-mounted signs are present but not legible as school/speed signage (blue placard on the electric pole in v-MEW2qV2PuN_h229; indistinct sign in the distance in eyamZL4rpWKW_h095). No 2023-identity assets (fluorescent yellow-green faces, zone-start/transition signs, red-white markings, beacon hardware). Observability 0.6: small signage could be missed off-frame.

◑
The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

A little setback or partial barrier — limited space off the road.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review
NoneMinimal

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

Also cited for this check
2.5 of 10 points
LevelMinimal (L1)
Points2.5 of 10
ConfidenceMed
Coverage seen≈50%
VerificationCorrected in the second reading
The full reasoning

Audit L0 fell: frontage opens onto a widened paved junction plaza behind a raised plinth, gate recessed under a portico - minimal setback, not flush onto a moving lane; no railed assembly area, so not 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 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