Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideGovernment Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya

Madan Pur Khadhar, Sarita Vihar, G7HR+826, Saidabad, Pocket C, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, Delhi 110076, India28.52828, 77.29002audited 2026-08-06

15/100

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 · 15

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

11.25points earned

63.9points we could see (64%)

17.6%provision

0.85exposure — collector

15.0provision × exposure

→

15SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (64% 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

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 collector road (Madanpur Khadar Road), on its NW side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-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 — 37/100 (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≈68%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, raised table, rumble strip or transverse-bar treatment on the gate frontage or the sampled approaches/zone (-wBOH0KitZaf_h050_f90_road.jpg, -wBOH0KitZaf_h230_f90_road.jpg, kpxc42wMQ0eh_h050_f90_trav.jpg, kpxc42wMQ0eh_h230_f90_trav.jpg, 2w7PTwAYC-sS_h288_f90_trav.jpg). A single white transverse line near the gate (Gfp-ugz5Sde__h312_f90_trav.jpg) reads as a stop/edge line, not a speed treatment.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.

Absent⟳ Corrected in review

BasicNone

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit's read fell. Deciding image -wBOH0KitZaf_h230_f90_road.jpg shows students crossing over plain tree-shadowed tarmac beside a MOVING private white SUV (Scorpio) - not a 'stopped school-transport vehicle' - with no resolvable zebra bars. The overlapping frontage views (-wBOH0KitZaf_h287_f90_gate_wide.jpg plain apron; Gfp-ugz5Sde__h312_f90_trav.jpg single edge/stop line) show no legible crossing where one would appear if present. The audit inferred L2 from momentary crossing activity + a mischaracterized stopped vehicle; with no positive evidence of a legible (or faded) marked crossing, final L0.

◑

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

BasicMinimal

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≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit's read fell. Its one-side continuity leaned on Gfp-ugz5Sde__h132_f90_trav.jpg, which is the perpendicular side road, not the gate frontage. On the frontage the campus-side footpath degrades to a dirt strip with name-board posts at the gate where children are pushed onto the carriageway (-wBOH0KitZaf_h287_f90_gate_wide.jpg, kpxc42wMQ0eh_h230_f90_trav.jpg), and the park-side walk has broken pavers/tree pits (2w7PTwAYC-sS_h108_f90_trav.jpg). Neither frontage side is continuously usable to the collector raised-footpath standard; footpath exists but broken along most of the frontage -> L1. HIGH not warranted given the gate break and the vendor-occluded opposite side; MED.

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

Abundant school NAME/identity boards (SKV/GBSSS/SARVODAYA) but these are not traffic warning signs (-wBOH0KitZaf_h287_f35_gate_zoom.jpg). No triangular school/children warning sign, and no resolvable compliant speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp on either approach. A blue circular regulatory-style sign + blue informatory/place board sit on a pole near the gate (-wBOH0KitZaf_h230_f90_road.jpg, kpxc42wMQ0eh_h230_f90_trav.jpg) but neither resolves as a school-warning or speed sign. No 2023-identity zone assets/beacons.

◑

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

GoodBasic

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

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit's read fell. Its L3 required either a separate pedestrian wicket (the audit itself resolved none in the zoom) or continuous rail gate->crossing - but the crossing endpoint does not exist (see P2), so that path collapses. The compound-wall-top railing is not a gate-to-crossing pedestrian channel. The L2 substrate - railed setback/forecourt apron giving off-carriageway assembly space plus boom barrier - is clearly and repeatedly visible (-wBOH0KitZaf_h287_f90_gate_wide.jpg, -wBOH0KitZaf_h287_f35_gate_zoom.jpg, Gfp-ugz5Sde__h312_f90_trav.jpg). Final L2, HIGH.

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