Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSapiens School of Learning - Enriched Holistic Preschool (Emotional Intelligence Curriculum By Harvard Doctors)

1, Grant Rd, near Shetkari Nagar, opp. to Water Front Society, EON Free Zone, Kharadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411014, India18.54912, 73.95570audited 2026-09-04

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

63.25points we could see (63%)

7.9%provision

1exposure — local

7.9provision × exposure

→

8SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (63% 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 S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 10-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 contextModerate — 22/100 (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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control devices (humps, tables, raised tables) and no speed-control markings (rumble/thermoplastic bands) visible anywhere in the assessable zone. Frontage is an unpaved dirt/gravel lot (CAoSF0NJSE0w_h175_f90_gate_wide, CAoSF0NJSE0w_h175_f35_gate_zoom, CAoSF0NJSE0w_h236_f90_road) with no devices; the paved arterial approaches (ASOpFew0BKfs_h058/h238, SoC6cSIltXGx_h234, tI0zK2MCgpv5_h238) also show no humps or tables.

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra, remnant markings, refuge island, or signalised crossing) visible near the gate or along the frontage/approaches. The unpaved frontage carries no markings; the paved arterial approaches show no crossing lines or refuges.

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

No usable walking edge; children walk in the traffic lane.

Absent⟳ Corrected in review

NoneNone

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

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit's L1 falls. The audit rested L1 ('footpath exists but broken/blocked') on the raised stone-clad strips in ASOpFew0BKfs_h058 and tI0zK2MCgpv5_h238, but on re-examination those strips are densely planted plot-boundary verges (bushes/small trees, non-walkable) dividing road from fenced/open plots, not footpaths. At the gate (h056) and across the frontage (h175, h236) the pedestrian space is open unpaved muddy ground with no defined walkable edge, and the arterial approaches show only dirt shoulders. With no footpath existing along most of the frontage, the blind read's L0 (none / children on open ground/carriageway) is the supported final. Deciding images: h056, h175_gate_wide, h236, ASOpFew0BKfs_h058, tI0zK2MCgpv5_h238.

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No road-safety signage: no school warning sign, no speed-limit sign, and no 2023-identity zone assets (transition sign, zone-start, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, or beacon hardware) visible on either approach. Only the school's own name board and commercial hoardings are present.

◑

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

NoneBasic

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≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit's L0 falls. L0 is a positive condition ('gate opens directly onto carriageway') and the imagery contradicts it: in h056 the gate is a metal grille pedestrian gate with railing, and it fronts open unpaved ground, not a live carriageway. The off-carriageway assembly space is corroborated by h175_gate_wide and h236, which show the frontage is a large open unpaved lot. Railing (built form) + ample off-carriageway assembly space satisfies L2. No separate pedestrian wicket, continuous rail to a crossing, or marked pick-up/drop-off bay is visible, so it does not reach L3/L4. Confidence MED: the gate detail rests on the single billboard-occluded h056, though the setback/open-ground character is multiply corroborated. Observability gap (blind 0.60 vs audit 0.25, >0.15): the audit relied on h056 alone and floored to L0 under occlusion, whereas the frontage-character corroboration in h175/h236 lifts observability; settled 0.50.

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