Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>*I'll*grant*that*hugging*the*right*side
> is dangerous (actually, _changing lanes_ is dangerous, but since
> more of that is necessary as one nears the right lane, the right
> lane is indeed dangerous as a result).

Yes

> However, on any highway built to Interstate standards, which is to
> say if there is *no left side egress*, it is a valid (albeit not
> necessarily smart) law to require traffic to favor the right lane
> when not passing.**It*almost*makes*sense*with*two*lanes,*bu t*gets
> to be less and less sane with more than two lanes of traffic.

Not quite. It makes very little sense with two lanes. Ideally, everyone
would move at a safe speed and distance in the left lane, with the right
lane clear for merging vehicles (including trucks like the one that almost
had RMS splattered all over it).

The only ones advocating "keep right except to pass" (KRETP) are those who
drive much faster that everyone (and the speed limit, of course). They
want the left lane cleared for them as they approach.

> The big problem I've seen is rural states trying to pass the
> same laws for roads that are not built to Interstate standards.
> (Alaska's highways are an example, and they've tried the "Slower
> Traffic Keep Right" even on roads with left side egress that
> lacks *a* left turn lane no less!**Abject*stupidity!

In California, legally, you are only supposed to stay away from the leftmost
lane if you are moving slower than the "normal speed of traffic at that
particular point and time" (the law does not seem to define what "normal
speed of traffic" is, other than say it may be distinct from the speed
limit). Regardless, I've never heard of this silly law being enforced
around San Diego.