Approximately 20% of those who responded participate in car-sharing to get children to school or college, and 20% for shopping. Perhaps unsurprisingly less than 10% share vehicles to travel to work, and almost 40% never share.

While most would not make use of a car-share telephone network, an encouraging number might do so. 52% share transport to social and leisure activities.

When asked if they would use an extended bus service for certain activities, 428 responses were made, the most significant destinations and uses being as follows (percentage of 152 respondents):

Other destinations included Tiverton, Taunton and Sidmouth, but potential users for such services were 4% or less of respondents.

371 people responded about difficulties in getting out of Plymtree; while 65% never encountered difficulty, 12% found that this occurred often and 23% occasionally.

A significant number of respondents said they would use a reopened Cullompton railway station occasionally, particularly for leisure purposes.

Recommendations: The possibility of obtaining additional, probably smaller, buses to serve both school runs and the other identified purposes should be investigated. (It is possible that the new Flexi-bus service may supply some of these needs).

A car-share telephone network be promoted.

320 people responded to questions about damage to vehicles through crime or accidents while parked in Plymtree. 91% of these had not experienced such problems, but 4% had suffered damage while their vehicle was parked in their own premises, and a further 6% while parked on the road.

Asked about cars parked on the roads, approximately equal numbers of the 340 respondents were anti (33%), saying they were "always a nuisance", or pro (36%) "no problem". 26% thought that parked cars had a traffic-calming effect, and 17% considered that, while they were acceptable by day, they were dangerous at night.

Comment: The traffic-calming effect would be predictable given our narrow roads: a quarter of all respondents found it to be significant. As to day-time on-road parking, if one combines the "no problem" (36%) and "only dangerous at night" (17%) replies, it would seem that over half of respondents experience no great problems.

Recommendations: The number of vehicles parked on-road in Plymtree today are not considered to present major problems, though safe parking, particularly at night, should be promoted.

71% - 245 of 345 respondents considered that there were particular danger spots in the parish. The area mentioned most was outside the School (44). Various danger points around the Plymtree triangle were quoted by another 68. There were 14 mentions of Clyst William Cross, where there have been three serious accidents in recent years.

Of the 365 who responded to the question, "Do you think the village has a problem with drivers travelling too fast?" only 72 (20%) did not perceive a problem. 240 (66%) identified speeding as a problem at night and this increased to 285 (78%) during the day.

Nearly 75% of the 372 people who considered the effectiveness of lower speed limits felt they would have some positive effect:

From Comments: There was clearly an awareness of excessive road speeds and, equally, inconsiderate behaviour by some drivers: some young drivers and those driving lorries and agricultural vehicles or machines were singled out. Several people mentioned soiling of the road surface, which makes it slippery and dangerous.

Recommendations: The introduction of a 30mph speed limit should be considered within the road system bounded by "Plymtree" signs. It might also assist if the police could target identified irresponsible drivers.

There should be improved advance warning signs for the School.

Safety improvements should be sought at Clyst William Cross.

Almost half (50%) of the 370 responses were against additional street lighting in the village: 38% would like more, and 13% had no view. 78 people suggested locations which would benefit from street lights, of which the principal ones were:

From Comments: The main concerns were for the road between the Church and School, and for Normans Green. However, many of those suggesting street lighting stressed that it should be limited, with clear concerns about light pollution.

Of the 361 responses to the question, "Do you think there should be a road safety message on village entry signs?" 69% supported the concept, while only 15% were opposed, and 16% had no opinion. 76 people made suggestions for the wording, of which one third favoured:

"Please drive slowly (or carefully) through the village"

Recommendation: The addition of some road safety message should be considered by any group which takes up the idea of attractive Village entrance signs (see above).

107 people made suggestions to reduce problems at these times. Most (93) centred around managing traffic and parking, although 49 suggested exploring alternatives to car use, especially walking. On parking, the largest number (28) pleaded for greater use of the existing car parks. Only 10 mentioned a new car park for the School.