Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideAkash Convent Sr. Sec. School

Near samod bypass bridge, road, Gurudham Colony, Samod, Chomu, Rajasthan 303702, India27.17664, 75.73893audited 2026-08-09

5/100

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 · 5

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

5points earned

74.5points we could see (74%)

6.7%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

4.7provision × exposure

→

5SSI · 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 an arterial road, on its SE side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 8-leg junction

Street activity7 mapped shops within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)

Crash record5 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 6 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextHigh — 75/100. 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 seen anywhere in the visible zone: no hump, raised table, rumble strip or speed marking on the frontage carriageway or either approach. Near-gate carriageway visible in both directions across multiple road/traverse shots; ROB approach at zone edge shows lane/edge-line markings only, no calming device. Distant reaches partly hazy (observability <1).

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 or otherwise) visible near the gate or in the zone. Gate opens across an unpaved apron onto plain carriageway with no crossing markings; the only carriageway paint (lane/edge lines, painted kerb blocks) is at the far ROB embankment ~150-173 m away and is not a crossing. Immediate gate-front carriageway partly obscured by nadir blur, so faded remnants cannot be fully excluded.

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

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

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Arterial standard = raised footpath. None present on either frontage: both edges are unpaved earthen shoulders used for motorcycle parking and by pedestrians; no raised/kerbed or paved footpath anywhere along the visible frontage or approaches, so pedestrians share the carriageway/shoulder. Both edges clearly visible in multiple views.

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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No traffic school-warning sign, speed-limit sign, or named 2023-identity zone asset identifiable. The 'AKASH CONVENT SCHOOL' arch is a premises name board, not a road-safety warning sign; surrounding poles carry commercial/advertising boards. Small signs elsewhere along the ~173 m zone cannot be fully excluded (unseen != absent), hence moderate observability.

◑

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

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate is clearly recessed behind a broad off-carriageway forecourt/setback between the compound wall/gate and the paved carriageway, giving ample assembly space off the road (a truck stands parked within this forecourt). Setback is generous and unambiguous (L2). Forecourt is unpaved. No separate pedestrian wicket confirmable at HIGH confidence and no continuous rail gate->crossing, so L3 not awarded; no marked pick-up/drop-off bay.

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