Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideG P Eng School

QVGQ+768, Sanganer, Vidhani, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302022, India26.77565, 75.88807audited 2026-08-06

12/100

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 · 12

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

8.75points earned

73.5points we could see (74%)

11.9%provision

1exposure — local

11.9provision × exposure

→

12SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (74% 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 W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 5-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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control devices (humps, tables, raised crossings, rumble/TBM markings) on any approach; carriageway is flat asphalt in all clear road-surface views (QHp6 both directions, xKSQfZRouA68 both directions, tKZgIcyB h343, gate-frontage north view). Immediate gate approach partly obscured by junction apron/foreground blur, so a device right at the gate cannot be fully excluded.

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra/table-top/signalised) observed at the gate or across the junction; only lane/centre-line and edge-line markings are present. Pedestrians are seen crossing mid-carriageway informally. Immediate-gate pavement is partly blurred and some distant markings are marginal, so a faded remnant cannot be fully excluded.

◑

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

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No raised/built footpath anywhere along the frontage. A walkable unpaved dirt edge exists in stretches on both sides but is broken/blocked by permanent causes — utility poles planted in the margin, stone boundary walls at the carriageway edge, drainage ditches and uneven/debris ground — along most of the frontage (assessed as continuous clear walkable edge for the mapped 'local' class). Broken condition visible over most of the zone.

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No road-traffic school-warning sign, no speed-limit sign/carriageway speed stamp, and no 2023 zone-identity asset observed on either approach. Boards present are a school name board and commercial/real-estate hoardings only (a name board is not a warning sign). Several distant boards are illegible at this resolution, so a warning sign cannot be fully excluded.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

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

Partial

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Built form: continuous stone rubble boundary wall (partial barrier) with the school set back from the carriageway behind a dirt forecourt/apron — the gate does not open directly onto the carriageway. The precise gate opening is obscured by the wall, vegetation and foreground blur, and the setback space is partly undeveloped junction/dirt land rather than a clearly defined off-carriageway assembly area; no separate pedestrian opening, continuous rail gate→crossing, or marked pick-up/drop-off bay observed. Scored to the lower candidate level given LOW confidence.

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