Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideShri Mhalasakant Vidyalaya, Akurdi, Pune

JQXG+H49, Shri Mhalsakant Vidyalaya Rd, Sector No. 28, Pradhikaran, Nigdi, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Maharashtra 411044, India18.64890, 73.77536audited 2026-08-06

13/100

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 · 13

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

11.25points earned

65.7points we could see (66%)

17.1%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

12.8provision × exposure

→

13SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (66% 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 (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Path), on its S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-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 contextElevated — 52/100 (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, raised table, rumble strip or thermoplastic speed marking visible on the divided frontage carriageway or on the forecourt approach to the gate; road surface reads as plain asphalt in all usable views. Bollards along the forecourt edge are not speed-control devices.

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/stud line) visible at the gate, on the forecourt, or across the divided frontage carriageway. Pedestrians and students are seen crossing informally. Road is divided, so a refuge would be required for L3+, but no crossing exists.

◑

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

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈58%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Collector+/arterial standard (raised footpath) not met. School side of frontage is an at-grade paved forecourt apron rather than a raised footpath; opposite side shows a compound wall abutting the carriageway with pedestrians walking at the road edge. No continuous raised footpath on either side; some walkable edge exists but is not a proper built footpath along most of the frontage. Parked two-wheelers on the apron treated as momentary and not scored.

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≈58%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No legible school-warning sign or speed-limit sign identifiable facing the frontage on either approach; no 2023-identity zone assets (transition/zone-start signs, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, beacon hardware). Small unreadable boards near the gate could not be resolved as school/speed signage.

◑

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

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈88%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate is set well back behind a large paved forecourt giving ample off-carriageway assembly space, with a line of bollards along the forecourt/carriageway edge providing partial separation. A distinct separate pedestrian opening and a continuous rail from gate to a crossing could not be confidently confirmed in zoom, so capped at 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

2026-08-06Audited

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