I'm a dilettante hypermiler, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving) which is mostly about driving slowly. And wow, it's amazing how mad some people get when you drive the posted speed limit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers...
They are much more likely to be highly aware of how they interact with traffic than they are a dangerous, oblivious obstruction.
Going slower? Possible, depends on how much slower.
This is not generally the case.
Don't piss people off unnecessarily for no reason other than to prove a point.
Move to the right.
This is different than "the left lane...is for passing. Unless you are passing you should NOT be in this lane". Under this rule, it would be perfectly acceptable to be in the left lane if you aren't passing and also aren't obstructing faster traffic. However, this rule has traffic management problems similar to those with the left-is-reserved-for-passing-rule (which is probably why its even rarer in law than the left-is-reserved-for-passing-rule, though a couple states do have something like it).
The more common legal rule -- and there are good reasons for this rule to be preferred -- is that you have to use the rightmost lane if you are moving slower than the normal speed on the road (independent of the legal limit); this is different than a reserved for passing rule and also different than a move-right-for-faster traffic rule, and is superior to either for traffic management, since with a simple move-right-for-faster-traffic rule, a very small number of drivers wishing to drive at excessive speed could oblige significantly greater congestion in the other lanes with drivers forced to yield to them (and, of course, a strict reserved-for-passing rule has a similar effect). The move-right-if-slower-than-normal rule is pretty much the best rule for traffic management.
It might be straight-forward and sensible (that, particularly the latter, is particularly subjective), but its very distant conceptually from the rules commonly used elsewhere that form the basis for the categorization and thus is, in context, weird.
People complain about bad usage of the left lane but my gripe is people being in the right lanes but are not exiting. On a daily basis it is often the source of almost half the congestion I see on the road.
The rest is from the "me first!" crowd that probably advocate this left lane is only for passing in all cases nonsense.
Except when a special designation is made (common on, e.g., two lane highways that have a stretch where a third lane is added to one or the other side expressly for passing), no such thing exists in many US jurisdictions. There are some US jurisdictions where the leftmost lane is by default reserved for passing (or passing and allowing traffic to merge in the other lane), but that is the exception, not the general rule.
No, its not. Except where it is. This varies from place to place -- differences in law represent different decisions about whether or not this is true by different communities.
> If you are one of those people that set the cruise control and doesn't move over when people are behind you
There is a difference between the left lane being reserved for passing and a convention of slower traffic being expected to move right. The reserved for passing rule is much less common -- either as law or social convention -- than some form of slow-traffic-move-right rule.
Even if it's clearly marked HOV, you need to make a left turn, or it's a single lane you'll still somehow be a danger to society.
Speed limits in North America were lowered to save fuel during the oil shortages in the latter half of the 20th century and subsequently were never raised.
Assuming you maintain proper spacing between you and the other cars, driving at 110 km/h is not significantly more dangerous than at 100 or even 90 km/h.
I can't speak to Canada, but they were certainly raised afterwards in much of the U.S. The only exceptions I've come across are roads and highways that are frequently congested (e.g. in DC) or local municipalities doing the speed trap thing. But most states raised to at least 65 mph from 55.
Although, most risk of accident numbers I've seen are based on miles driven. I wonder which is the most important thing for frequency -- time, or miles.
Actually most people drive ~100km/h on the road I have in mind so 80 is annoying to some already, but I try to never tailgate anyone into driving faster. Only when someone does ~72 because they think that's what they are allowed to drive... such a small difference and yet so annoying.