Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSt. Helena's School

8, Susie Sorabji Road, Agarkar Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411001, India18.52348, 73.87299audited 2026-09-04

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

77.5points we could see (78%)

14.5%provision

1exposure — local

14.5provision × exposure

→

15SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (78% 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 E side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 5-leg junction

Street activity1 bus stop 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 — 26/100 (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≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device (hump, table, raised crossing) anywhere in the zone across both approaches and the gate frontage. Road surface is clearly readable in multiple 2026-01 views. Faint transverse patch-marks near the kerb in QyZ2aIk5UPca h076 are not confidently speed-control markings; no rumble/TBM confirmed.

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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra, table-top or signalised) visible anywhere along the frontage or near the gate; no refuge island. Pedestrians are seen crossing informally mid-carriageway (h282/h102 views). Carriageway well observed in both directions.

◑

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local-street walkable-edge assessment. No continuous raised/paved footpath; edges are mostly unpaved dirt/rough shoulders where the carriageway meets compound walls, walkable only in discontinuous patches (narrow paved strip along wall in gDel3RhPbi2Q h102 breaks up). Pedestrians observed walking on the carriageway. Edge exists but is broken/discontinuous (permanent geometry) along most of the frontage. Parked vehicles excluded from judgment.

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

No school-warning traffic sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp, or 2023-identity zone asset (transition/zone-start sign, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, beacon hardware) observed on either approach. Green boards at the gate are the school name/notice boards, not traffic warning signage. Some tree occlusion of pole tops reduces 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≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate does not open directly onto the carriageway: a metal railing/fence encloses a paved forecourt/setback between the gate frontage and the carriageway, giving off-carriageway assembly space. No separate pedestrian wicket confirmed in zoom and no crossing exists to run a continuous rail to, so L3 not met; no marked pick-up/drop-off bay. Clear multi-view coverage of the gate.

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