prathmann

First note that North Carolina's official position on traffic laws is expressed directly in the vehicle code that has been adopted by that state. Any other materials which may or may not conflict with the adopted vehicle code are not legally binding. The appellate courts of North Carolina would be the ones to have the final say on any interpretation of confusing language within the vehicle code, so if you claim that such is the case with the SMV section you have the responsibility to cite the relevant court decisions which support that view. I have asked you to provide such in the past but have received no response. My view is that the language of that section is in very plain English and needs no special interpretation other than to read it as exactly what it says.

When a SMV driver is required to be in the right-hand lane or as far to the right on the roadway as practicable then the driver normally has a choice of how to comply. Only in the event where there is no right-hand lane, i.e. a road without any lane marking, would the driver be required to stay as far right as practicable.

The language construction is the same as if I asked a friend to "bring me a Coke or a Pepsi from the soda fountain." If he finds both available there then it's his choice which one he brings me and he would find it odd and offensive if he brings back a Coke and I then complain and say that he should have known I really wanted a Pepsi. But if the fountain has no Coke then his choice disappears and he should get the Pepsi.