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

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 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? Personally, I don't know, but I read this article earlier today and thought it had a good overview of some different societal approaches to the problem: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2718211 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2718211. 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.