Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideShree Sharda children academy

3RJJ+5VJ, Daulatpura, Rajasthan 303805, India27.08046, 75.83215audited 2026-08-09

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.

8.75points earned

70points we could see (70%)

12.5%provision

1exposure — local

12.5provision × exposure

→

13SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (70% 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 12-leg junction

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

Crash record8 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 5 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextElevated — 48/100. 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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device visible in zone. Both frontage approaches within 30 m of the gate are viewable (east toward the open junction, west along the lane) and the wider through-road is smooth asphalt with a painted centreline; no hump, table, rumble strip or worn calming device anywhere. Frontage surface is rough/dusty but a raised device would be visible.

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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing anywhere in view. The frontage lane and the area within 20 m of the gate are visible with no crossing markings; the wider through-road shows a centreline only, no zebra/stud crossing and no refuge island. Pedestrians observed walking/crossing on the carriageway.

◑

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⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalMinimal

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

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

School-side building row sits on a raised plinth/apron (foxP2K h146/h324): a broken, one-side walkable edge, not 'none.' Opposite side open ground. Blind's L0 understates the plinth; discontinuous, so not L2. Final L1.

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 regulatory or warning traffic sign visible: no school-warning triangle, no speed-limit sign, no carriageway speed stamp, no 2023-identity zone assets. The only school signage is the school's own advertising banner and a blue directional/transport board pointing to the gate, which are not road warning signs. Immediate gate approaches are clear of signs; full extent of the wider through-road approaches is not fully resolvable (one far pano washed out), so an unseen sign further out cannot be excluded (unseen is not absent).

◑

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≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Both reads agree a minimal raised apron/plinth fronts the gate wall — that is 'minimal setback/partial' (L1), not 'opens directly onto carriageway' (L0). No railing/forecourt/assembly space (not L2). Audit's L0 fell; parked van occludes base, MED.

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