Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideTulip School Jagatpura

3-MB-427, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Indira Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302017, India26.84025, 75.87582audited 2026-08-06

8/100

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 · 8

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

5points earned

65.25points we could see (65%)

7.7%provision

1exposure — local

7.7provision × exposure

→

8SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (65% 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 S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)

Crash recordno road death within 500 m of the gate in the Jaipur Police crash data

Exposure contextModerate — 22/100. 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 physical speed-control devices (hump, table, rumble/TBM, marked device) on any observed approach. Gate frontage and near approaches (0-30 m) are unpaved dirt/sand and clearly show nothing; the paved road at the far zone edge (~157 m) also shows none. Mid-zone (approx 30-155 m) is not imaged, so absence there is not asserted.

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, table-top or refuge visible on any observed stretch. Near-gate surfaces are unpaved (no markings possible); the far-edge paved road carries no crossing markings either. Mid-zone not imaged.

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local street: no continuous built footpath. The pedestrian realm is the same unpaved dirt/sand surface used by vehicles; no raised or delineated walkable edge along the frontage, and edges elsewhere are open scrub, sand or construction debris. The building's entrance apron is a private forecourt, not a through footpath. Near-frontage clearly lacks a walkable edge; mid-zone not imaged.

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 school-warning, speed-limit or zone-identity traffic signage on any observed approach. Banners on the building are commercial/school advertising, not traffic signs. Small boards at the far zone edge read as directional/advertising, not school-zone assets. Mid-zone not imaged.

◑

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.

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈85%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The disagreement is a consequence of the main-entrance disagreement: the audit assessed P5 on the veranda frontage (L1 - shared undifferentiated forecourt), the blind read on the staircase frontage (L2). With the main entrance corrected to the staircase frontage, the deciding images (hfOmIX7PhxmJ h226 wide + zoom) show a raised tiled plinth/porch with a stainless-steel railing and steps, set back behind a metal-fenced garden from the dirt lane - a railed, elevated off-carriageway assembly space, which meets L2. The audit's L1 falls with its entrance identification. Held at MED, not HIGH: the two-frontage identification carries residual ambiguity, and the at-grade apron merges into the lane with no kerb. L3 not supported (no separate pedestrian wicket distinct from a vehicle gate; no crossing to rail toward), consistent with both reads. Observability 0.85 (gate fully seen in wide+zoom; parked vehicles partially occlude the apron).

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