Schools / Delhi

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideGovt. Boys Sr. Sec. (Opposite Gurudwara, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi)

M6WG+CR4, Magazine Rd, Majnu-ka-tilla, New Aruna Nagar, Delhi, 110054, India28.69601, 77.22709audited 2026-08-06

19/100

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 · 19

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

17.5points earned

68.75points we could see (69%)

25.5%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

19.1provision × exposure

→

19SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (69% 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 an arterial road (Doctor KB Hedgewar Marg), on its W 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 contextElevated — 48/100 (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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, table, or carriageway rumble/TBM anywhere on the frontage or the near approaches; the smooth asphalt carriageway surface at and within ~30 m of the gate is clearly visible on both approaches (east approach fully seen; west approach partly occluded by a passing truck). Black-yellow paint seen is kerb/median hazard-paint, not surface speed control.

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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra) observed at or near the gate; the frontage carriageway is visible with no crossing markings. The road is divided (median could serve as a refuge) but no crossing exists to use it. A signalised junction lies ~100-130 m NE, beyond the gate vicinity and not resolvable for markings.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

Partial

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Arterial (raised footpath expected). School-frontage side has a continuous, usable, raised paver-block footpath with kerb running both directions from the gate (pedestrians and a uniformed child walk it freely); tree pits sit at the back edge, not blocking the walking line. Opposite side (across the planted median) could not be assessed — occluded by median planting, distance and parked vehicles — so 'both sides' (L3) is not confirmed. Separation from the carriageway at the gate is kerb-only (no continuous guardrail/bollard line gate to a crossing).

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school warning sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp, or 2023-identity asset observed on either approach. Signage present is the school's own blue name board and blue road-destination gantries/signs (Kashmiri Gate; Wazirabad; Mukarba Chowk) — not school-zone warnings. Heavy roadside foliage could hide a pole-mounted sign, hence MED.

◑

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⟳ 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

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Deciding images: -DLE gate_wide (frontal) and road h278 (oblique). Both show the gate fronted by a raised, kerbed footpath forecourt several metres deep — a person stands on it clear of the carriageway in h278. That is off-carriageway assembly space, which satisfies L2's wording ('clear setback OR railing giving off-carriageway assembly space'). The audit's L1 fell: it required a 'materially widened forecourt', a stricter test than L2 states; the continuous raised kerbed footpath (the same one credited at P3) is the assembly space L2 asks for. Not L3: gate_zoom shows twin steel leaves with no resolvable separate pedestrian wicket (the dark side panel reads as a meter/utility box) and there is no continuous rail gate-to-crossing; L3 would also require HIGH. Confidence settled MED because the setback depth rests on a single pano vantage (frontal + oblique from the same camera position), which does not meet the two-independent-views bar — acceptable since L2 carries no HIGH requirement. Observability settled 0.8: the gate face and setback are clearly imaged, but the single vantage and unresolved wicket/drop-off-bay elements pull it below the audit's 0.9.

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