their vehicles onto the pavement and we trust they will maintain their vehicles in a state
of roadworthiness such that they will not suddenly mount the pavement as a result of
mechanical failure. There are, of course, social and political structures which provide us
with some basis for this trust. It is a general social expectation (as well as a legal
requirement at least in the UK) that drivers drive with ‘due care and attention’ and
while the majority of drivers continue to recognise some mutual benefit in driving in a
‘socially responsible’ way then our trust is well founded. In addition, there are
regulatory powers that have the effect of assuring us that our trust is generally
warranted. Motor vehicle owners are required by law to ensure their vehicle is
maintained in a roadworthy condition and there are penalties for failure to comply.
It is worth noting here that social and political trust should be understood as operating
within both formal and informal institutions that may exist in either physical or virtual
forms. In the UK the Department for Transport is an example of a formal institution
with a physical presence; whereas the highway code is formal but has no physical
presence (other than in its written form). The highway code, road signs, road markings
and so on together make up a social institution insofar as motorists tend, on the whole,
to accept and observe these ‘rules of the road’ for their own safety and for the safety of
others, including pedestrians.
Risks of harm
I have argued that being vulnerable is part of what it means to be human. I have
suggested that those who are able do, under normal circumstances, take steps to reduce
or minimise their vulnerability to the sorts of harms against which it is reasonable to
suppose actions can have a protective effect. Thus, while I may come to physical harm
by being hit by a moving vehicle I can (and do) reduce the likelihood of such harm by,
in general, walking on the pavement rather than in the road. Similarly I protect myself
from psychological (and potentially physical) trauma by avoiding anxiety provoking
situations. And while there remain differences in the way individuals view risk such that
what one person may perceive as dangerous or anxiety provoking may not be viewed
this way by another, it remains the case that our assessment of risk tends, on the whole,
to lead us to act in ways that we believe will protect us from harm. Hence we do tend to
act so as to reduce or minimise our vulnerability while recognising that some of the
reduction in our vulnerability stems from our trust in the social and political institutions
44