Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideHEMS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

Near Pandit Petrol Pump, Opp. Pratibha Motors Dnyanda Colony Vivekanand Nagar, Dange Chowk, Bhumkar Chowk, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Tathawade, Pune, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Maharashtra 411057, India18.60929, 73.75933audited 2026-09-04

9/100

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 · 9

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

6.25points earned

69points we could see (69%)

9.1%provision

1exposure — local

9.1provision × exposure

→

9SSI · 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

FrontageThe gate opens onto a local street, on its W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 6-leg junction

Street activity1 mapped shop 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 contextModerate — 25/100 (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 humps, tables, rumble strips or traffic-calming markings visible on any usable approach or at the gate. Carriageway is a plain narrow residential lane, partly unpaved in places.

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra, remnant or table-top) visible on the carriageway near the gate or along the approaches. Road surface at gate is legible and shows no markings.

◑

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

NoneMinimal

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≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit's L0 fell. For a mapped 'local' street the P3 standard is a continuous clear walkable edge, not a raised/paved footpath (that raised-footpath bar applies to collector+). Imagery shows informal but genuine walkable margins along much of the frontage (dirt strip by the mural compound wall h076; margins in h083 and h263) that are broken/discontinuous from permanent causes (abutting buildings, poles, level changes) and, ignoring parked vehicles as P3 requires, not usable continuously. A pedestrian on the carriageway (5Cl4aDu6Y h008) reflects a broken edge, not a wholly absent one. This is L1 (exists but broken/blocked along most of frontage), not L0 (none). Audit required paving, a standard too strict for this class; blind's L1 holds. MED confidence as edge walkability is marginal.

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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No traffic school-warning sign, speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp visible on either approach. HEMS SCHOOL board is a facility identity board, not a traffic warning asset; other visible signs are NO PARKING notices.

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

The gate opens onto the road

Children step from the gate straight toward moving traffic.

Absent⟳ Corrected in review

NoneNone

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

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Blind's L1 fell. Its stated basis for a partial barrier was the mural compound wall (LfxLHBEut2zA h076), which belongs to a different (playground) frontage, not the identified main entrance; and the blind itself rated this LOW (which should drop to the lower candidate anyway). At the identified gate (HEMS building, h218 zoom/wide), the shopfront/building frontage meets the narrow lane with no visible compound wall, railing, or setback giving off-carriageway assembly space; the small tiled shop platform is not a school setback and is occupied by a vendor stall/LPG. Immediate threshold partly occluded by a parked tempo, hence MED not HIGH. Audit's L0 read holds.

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

2026-09-04Audited

2027-03-07Re-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