It's likely that we agree on real-world practice: one should allow vehicles to safely pass regardless of the legality of their speed, and harassing someone who is driving in the wrong lane is to be avoided. I drive as politely as I can, both for my own safety and that of others.
That said, I am philosophically troubled by a law that legally requires me to take a positive action that benefits those who choose to ignore the law. I'm not sure what the parallel would be to your "yield to the right" example --- perhaps requiring that the driver with the legal right of way check first that no one has chosen to ignore the yield sign?
I would be interested in better parallel examples where positive action is mandated to improve public safety in the event that another party is breaking the law. My guess is that degree of comfort with similar laws show a strong urban/rural split, based on the degree to which "leave the policing to the police" is feasible.
(note that I'm not questioning the general principal of "slow traffic keep right", only the corner case where all traffic is already moving at the legal speed limit)
I can not provide parallel examples but I disagree with your premise that you are obligated to stay right to enable others to break the law. Even if you are the only car on the road you still must drive in the right lane unless passing.
The law says to stay right regardless of speed so there is no corner case based on traffic moving at the legal speed limit. Your obligation to stay right exists at all speeds.
The purpose of the law is to improve safety by enabling smooth traffic flow and creating a predictable environment on the road. This is the parallel with "yield to the right". Communication between drivers is difficult so we have a set of rules to guide us in situations where the next action may otherwise be unclear.
If two people meet in a hallway they can look at each other and say "excuse me" or "go ahead". This is not possible on the road. In the same way I can walk up behind someone on the sidewalk and say "excuse me" and walk around them. In a car this is not possible so we agree in advance (or rather, we are told by the authorities) what to do to avoid the situation and how to reconcile it.
In some jurisdictions the purpose of the left lane is explicitly passing, you have no right to drive there unless you are passing someone else. In this case your obligation to stay right has nothing to do with the existence of a speeder or even your rate of speed.
I am not defending speeding because it does increase risk and reduce safety on the road but it becomes much more dangerous when other drivers are also not following the rules. Breaking the speed limit while someone else violates the lane occupancy laws creates a compounding risk for everyone on the road. This is why we have rules against both.
I would turn your request for parallel examples around and ask you for examples of a situation where it is ok to break the law to prevent someone else from doing the same. How do you justify such an action and is there a calculation as to how far to go? Is it ok to jaywalk to stop a robbery? Is it ok to murder someone to prevent jaywalking? When is vigilantism justified?
I disagree with your premise that you are obligated to stay right to enable others to break the law.
My premise is actually a little different, which is that a keep-right law without an exclusion for vehicles travelling the speed limit implicitly condones speeding. I'm questioning the intent of the lawmakers, not suggesting that the state laws should not be followed as they currently exist.
The law says to stay right regardless of speed so there is no corner case based on traffic moving at the legal speed limit.
Well, except (as best as I can tell) for Alaska, Arkansas, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Dakota, plus a couple more that make an exception if you are travelling faster than traffic flow: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html.
Interestingly, though, it looks like the current trend is for states to move away from this approach that I feel is more logical, and switch to a blanket "keep right except to pass" that you seem to prefer. This would suggest that my concerns are becoming less widely shared by others.
I would turn your request for parallel examples around and ask you for examples of a situation where it is ok to break the law to prevent someone else from doing the same.
This is a question that does trouble me, but I'll start by reiterating that I'm not encouraging people to ignore this law. Rather, I'm more interested in whether laws of this sort have an overall positive effect for society.
But answering the question, I think nonviolent actions such as taking someone's car keys to prevent them from driving while intoxicated might be justifiable. I think there are cases where releasing classified documents showing illegal government activity is morally justifiable. And there are times when I'd approve of stopping a violent crime in progress using otherwise illegal force against the perpetrator.
Is it ok to jaywalk to stop a robbery?
Yes, although I guess you'd have to weigh the chance that the jaywalking would endanger others.
Is it ok to murder someone to prevent jaywalking?
Apart from contrived cases involving extremely fat pedestrians and runaway trolley cars, I have trouble coming up with a case where this would be appropriate.
How do you justify such an action and is there a calculation as to how far to go?
It points out that common law systems (most of the US) typically have few requirements for citizens to prevent or report third party crimes, while citizens in civil law systems (some of Europe) often have a greater legal obligation to do so. Generally this obligation is satisfied by reporting to the police, but in some jurisdictions (Israel) there is a further legal obligation "to use all reasonable means to prevent the commission" of any felony.
That said, I am philosophically troubled by a law that legally requires me to take a positive action that benefits those who choose to ignore the law. I'm not sure what the parallel would be to your "yield to the right" example --- perhaps requiring that the driver with the legal right of way check first that no one has chosen to ignore the yield sign?
I would be interested in better parallel examples where positive action is mandated to improve public safety in the event that another party is breaking the law. My guess is that degree of comfort with similar laws show a strong urban/rural split, based on the degree to which "leave the policing to the police" is feasible.
(note that I'm not questioning the general principal of "slow traffic keep right", only the corner case where all traffic is already moving at the legal speed limit)