It’s Time to Give New Zealanders the Freedom to Turn Left on Red

<First published on Point of Order>

One of the small pleasures of driving in America is something most Americans probably take for granted: the ability to turn right at a red traffic light.

Provided you come to a complete stop, check for pedestrians and other traffic, and proceed only when it’s safe, you don’t have to sit waiting for the light to turn green.

It’s a remarkably sensible rule. And every time I return to New Zealand, I’m reminded that Kiwis don’t enjoy the equivalent freedom to turn left on red.

Think about the absurdity of sitting at a red light, indicating left, with an entirely clear road ahead of you. There may not be another vehicle or pedestrian in sight. Nevertheless, the law requires you to sit there until the government-controlled light gives you permission to move.

Multiply those unnecessary delays across millions of journeys and the cumulative waste becomes considerable.

Which raises an interesting question: how much time could New Zealanders save if we adopted the American rule?

A lesson from America

Right turns on red were permitted in some American jurisdictions decades ago, but the practice spread nationally during the 1970s.

The catalyst was the oil crisis. With petrol prices soaring, policymakers looked for ways to reduce unnecessary fuel consumption, including the waste associated with vehicles idling at intersections.

The federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 encouraged states to permit right turns on red, subject to safety considerations. By the end of the decade, the practice had become standard across the country.

And it worked.

A 1975 Virginia study found that drivers delayed while turning right saved an average of 14 seconds per manoeuvre. Researchers also estimated substantial fuel savings from reduced idling.

Interestingly, New Zealand considered the same idea. In 1980, the National Roads Board published a 62-page study of left-turn-on-red, including an examination of intersections in Takapuna. It concluded that more detailed studies and field trials were warranted.

More than four decades later, we’re apparently still waiting.

How much time could we save?

Curious about the potential benefits, I asked ChatGPT to research the American experience, examine available New Zealand traffic data, and develop a reasonable estimate.

The results surprised me.

ChatGPT’s central estimate was approximately 1.6 million driver-hours saved annually, with a plausible scenario range of roughly 400,000 to 4.6 million hours.

To be clear, this isn’t an official transport model. It’s a back-of-the-envelope estimate built on published data and explicit assumptions. But it’s an instructive starting point.

Here’s how we arrived at it.

We assumed New Zealand has approximately 1,600 signalised intersections relevant to the proposal. That is an extrapolation rather than a verified national count. Auckland Transport reported 624 signal-controlled intersections in 2015, while Christchurch has approximately 288 intersections, and NZTA manages signals across numerous other centres.

We then assumed:

• An average of 26,000 vehicle movements per intersection daily, with 15% turning left.
• Around 65% of those turns would be suitable for the new rule, excluding existing slip lanes and unsuitable locations.
• Approximately 55% of eligible left-turning vehicles would encounter a red light.
• Half of those drivers could safely complete their turn before the light changed.
• Each successful turn would save an average of 14 seconds, consistent with the American research.

Put those assumptions together and you get approximately 1.1 million time-saving left turns every day.

At 14 seconds apiece, that works out to roughly 1.6 million hours annually.

That’s equivalent to more than 180 years of driving time, saved every single year.

The assumptions are debatable, of course. Some intersections carry far less traffic, others considerably more. Busy intersections might offer fewer safe gaps, while quieter suburban ones could allow drivers to proceed much sooner.

But even at the conservative end, the savings are substantial.

Time is a resource too

Economists frequently talk about productivity, capital investment and the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Time is among the scarcest resources of all.

Those 1.6 million hours could be spent working, delivering goods, visiting customers, or attending to any number of productive activities.

Alternatively, New Zealanders could simply spend more time with their families, exercising, reading, or doing whatever else they find enjoyable.

The value of the time saved doesn’t depend on whether someone uses it productively. Leisure has value too.

There are other benefits.

Less time idling at intersections means less wasted fuel. Shorter queues can improve traffic flows, potentially helping motorists who aren’t turning left. And fewer unnecessary delays might reduce some of the frustration familiar to anyone who drives regularly in Auckland or Wellington.

Unlike a new motorway or tunnel, this reform wouldn’t require billions in taxpayer funding or years of construction.

It principally requires a change in the rules, appropriate signage, and public education.

That’s a potentially attractive return on a relatively modest investment.

What about safety?

Naturally, the proposal would attract safety objections. American studies have identified increased risks associated with turning on red, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.

Those concerns deserve consideration, but they need not rule out reform.

Drivers would be required to stop completely and give way to pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles. Intersections with poor visibility, heavy pedestrian movements or other particular risks could be excluded by signage.

New Zealand already trusts motorists to exercise judgment when entering roundabouts, turning at give-way signs and navigating countless uncontrolled intersections. The principle is hardly revolutionary.

It’s also worth considering the direction of travel in road safety.

New Zealand recorded 371 road deaths in 2022, falling to 292 in 2024 and approximately 270 provisionally in 2025. Although the improvement hasn’t been uniform across all measures of road safety, the decline in fatalities is encouraging.

And technology offers further possibilities.

Modern vehicles increasingly incorporate automatic emergency braking, pedestrian detection, blind-spot monitoring and other driver-assistance systems. Tesla introduced its supervised Full Self-Driving system in New Zealand in 2025, and other manufacturers are developing increasingly sophisticated autonomous-driving capabilities.

Today’s supervised systems still require human attention, and their safety advantages aren’t yet conclusively established. Nevertheless, as the technology matures, there is good reason to expect further improvements in how vehicles detect and respond to hazards.

Road rules should be capable of evolving alongside those technologies.

A sensible approach would be to introduce the reform with carefully chosen exclusions, monitor the results, and adjust the rules in light of experience.

A freedom agenda hiding in plain sight

Which brings me to politics.

I’m rather surprised that ACT hasn’t championed this idea.

After all, what better example of a freedom agenda than removing an unnecessary restriction that costs New Zealanders time and money?

It is straightforward, easily understood, and offers a tangible benefit to ordinary people without creating another government programme or bureaucracy.

It also seems entirely consistent with the philosophy of the National Party I once knew: practical reform, greater personal responsibility and a willingness to challenge rules whose costs outweigh their benefits.

There’s an appealing political dimension too.

Most policy reforms are invisible to the average voter. Tax changes disappear into pay packets, regulatory improvements are buried in compliance costs, and productivity gains can take years to materialise.

But turning left on red?

Every time a motorist takes advantage of the freedom to proceed rather than waiting unnecessarily, there’s an opportunity to remember who made it possible.

That’s a rather more visible dividend than most governments can hope to deliver.

New Zealand has no shortage of grand schemes promising to lift productivity and improve living standards. Some are worthwhile; others involve enormous expense for uncertain returns.

This is different.

A relatively simple change, tested overseas for half a century, offering potentially millions of hours of additional freedom each year.

Sometimes improving a country’s productivity and quality of life doesn’t require spending more money.

Sometimes it simply requires getting government out of the way.

Give New Zealanders the green light to turn left on red.