Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideMount Carmel Convent High School

FVMM+HW5, Prakash Cooperative Housing Society, Block A, Lullanagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411040, India18.48390, 73.88487audited 2026-08-06

21/100

Unsafeprovisional band

Unsafe. Very little on this road protects a child crossing to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 3 are missing entirely.

This road · 21

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

17.5points earned

61.5points we could see (62%)

28.5%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

21.3provision × exposure

→

21SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (62% 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 an arterial road (Prabodhankar Thakare Path), on its S 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 contextElevated — 52/100 (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

0 of 30 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 30

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, raised table, or rumble strip visible on the arterial carriageway or the gate-side paved apron across multiple frontage views; smooth continuous asphalt throughout the visible stretch.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

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

Absent

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra) or refuge crossing visible along the frontage stretch; wide divided carriageway seen but no crossing markings in view. Crossings may exist at intersections beyond frame.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

Partial

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Arterial (raised footpath expected). Paved/tiled raised walkable edge present along the compound-wall side and appears usable where visible; opposite (building) side broken by forecourts and vehicle crossovers. No guard rail or bollard-line separation gate-to-crossing. Parked vehicles present but excluded as momentary.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈55%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No legible school-warning sign or speed-limit sign confirmed on either approach; roadside boards visible are advertising/directional hoardings. Signage small and partly occluded by trees, so absence not certain.

◑

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

Reads disagree (blind L2 vs audit L0). Deciding images are the two gate pano pairs. The audit's L0 ('gate opens directly onto carriageway') is refuted by the built form: a continuous raised brick-paver footpath separates the wall from the arterial travel lanes (7udeCf9iuXzB_h116_f90_gate_wide), and at h191 a wide paved apron sits between the wall and the carriageway giving clear off-carriageway assembly space (Wa8zn7jEp41u_h191_f90_gate_wide). The gate leaf itself is occluded by parked vehicles in both panos, but P5 setback is a built-form judgment observable from the frontage. This meets L2 (clear setback giving off-carriageway assembly space). No separate pedestrian opening or continuous rail gate-to-crossing is resolved, so not L3. L2 does not require HIGH confidence; MED given the occluded gate leaf. Audit's read fell.

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