I thought "traffic calming" was to reduce speed and increase safety. My point was that, if you reduce speed all the way to zero, safety is not increased, due to frustration. "Traffic is reduced" is not an accurate way to describe the situation.

I'm not a traffic engineer, but if "traffic calming" is to reduce speed and increase safety, then I have very rarely seen it work or be used that way.

Instead, it strikes me as both a tool for non-drivers that are "driver hating", as well as those local NIMBYs/etc that don't want those "crazy speeders" through the town ("think of the children").

Next time that folks discuss putting traffic calming bumps in your community, ask whether you want the emergency vehicles to be slowed down when you or your loved ones are waiting for an ambulance. Consider the extra pollution created by all the slowing down and speeding up.

I have spoken to folks familiar with Cambridge, MA government structures, where they have told me that it has been actively refused to re-time/synchronize stop lights to have a green wave because they want the traffic slowed down. New York City has real green waves (e.g. going up 1st ave). So next time you are driving down Massachusetts Ave in the evening and you hit random red lights for no reason, know that someone has explicitly decided to do this to you.

I green wave that goes 30 MPH, instead of 45, sounds like a good idea if you want traffic flow to be pedestrian friendly, though. Race car drivers have to stop, until they learn to just cruise.

Speaking both pedantically and based on my experience riding a bicycle, when traffic speed is reduced all the way to zero, it is in fact safer, at least for me. I am of course, not counting the risk of drivers stroking out from frustration-induced high blood pressure, but that's what we on bikes call a lifestyle choice.