The foregoing text has recounted the wide range of accidents, both fatal and otherwise, that afflicted Londoners and has also delineated the circumstances which led to such events. Within that sample there are a number of repeated occurrences that one would expect the rulers and governors of London, at all levels, to have identified as amenable of further control. It was in no one's interest to allow patently dangerous situations or activities to remain unchallenged, yet it can be confidently stated that the early modern period rarely saw over-arching institutional responses being made to metropolitan hazards. There were, however, localised responses to particular dangers that imposed measures, rules and regulation to encourage a more orderly and less dangerous urban environment. Reviewing the incidence and nature of such measures provides some understanding of the degrees to which contemporaries felt able to control their environment, actions and destiny in an age that was still redolent with providential justifications and understandings. As the eighteenth century progressed, many began to take more direct and specific steps to impose civilised order upon the urban environment with regard to both its design and processes.

Despite such modernising moves it would not be unreasonable to observe that danger lay in wait for many of London's inhabitants each and every time they ventured outdoors. For some it was their occupation that presented particular hazards, for others it was simply the everyday dangers to be found in and on the streets, highways and waterways. Many occupations were governed by bodies such as craft or livery companies who applied rules to commercial activity which, even if only tangentially, encouraged safer practices. In certain circumstances more structured workplaces presented opportunities for the application of specific regulation that resulted in less hazardous behaviours. Among the wider public there was a growing expectation that civic authorities should take steps to limit the risks presented by fire, vehicles and other obvious urban hazards. The wider recognition of such hazards was complicated by both the great diversity of metropolitan activity and the functionally nuanced characteristics of the public face of the city in the form of streets, markets and riverside wharfs.