California is the only state where lane splitting is legal under Cal. Veh. Code § 21658.1 — and adjusters from out of state routinely lie about it.
California is the only U.S. state with explicit statutory authorization for lane splitting under Cal. Veh. Code § 21658.1. Insurance adjusters — especially those handling claims from out-of-state carriers — routinely tell injured California riders that lane splitting was "illegal" or "negligent per se." It is neither. Under Li v. Yellow Cab pure comparative fault, even partial fault doesn't bar recovery, but every percentage matters when the injuries are catastrophic.
California's statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including motorcycle accidents, is two years under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1. California also follows pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), so no percentage of fault bars recovery — even a rider found 90% at fault still collects 10% from the other driver. That is a structurally better rule for motorcyclists than the modified comparative regimes in Texas or Pennsylvania, but the trade-off is that the fight in a California motorcycle case is always over fault apportionment.
California is the only U.S. state with an explicit statute authorizing lane splitting. Cal. Veh. Code § 21658.1, enacted in 2016 and effective 2017, defines lane splitting and directs the California Highway Patrol to develop safety guidelines for the practice. This matters in a crash claim because insurance adjusters — particularly those handling claims for out-of-state carriers — routinely tell injured California riders that lane splitting was "illegal" or constitutes "negligence per se." Both claims are wrong as a matter of California law. A California motorcycle attorney will defeat that argument with the statute itself and CHP's own guidance.
California requires all motorcycle riders and passengers to wear a DOT-compliant helmet under Cal. Veh. Code § 27803. Under California's pure comparative fault rule, helmet non-use can be raised as comparative fault as to head and neck injury damages — but not as a complete defense to liability for the underlying crash. If a rider was wearing a helmet, the issue is moot; if not, the defense argument is limited to a portion of the damages, not the case as a whole.
The California freeway system — I-5, I-10, I-15, I-405, the 101, and the Bay Area maze — creates constant lane-splitting use during congested hours. Most California motorcycle crashes still happen at intersections, with left-turning vehicles violating the rider's right of way. California's minimum auto insurance of 15/30/5 (one of the lowest in the country) is wholly inadequate for catastrophic injuries, so a serious case usually requires stacking the at-fault driver's policy with the rider's own UM/UIM coverage, MedPay, and any available umbrella or commercial-vehicle policies.
Legal Information Notice
The legal information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and every case is different. Always consult with a licensed attorney in your state to verify the current law and how it applies to your specific situation.
Yes. California is the only U.S. state with explicit statutory authorization for lane splitting. Cal. Veh. Code § 21658.1 defines lane splitting as a motorcycle being driven between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, and authorizes the California Highway Patrol to develop educational guidelines on safe lane-splitting practice. If an insurance adjuster tells you lane splitting was "illegal" or "negligence per se" in your California crash, that is wrong as a matter of California law. Document the conversation and call an attorney.
Yes. California Vehicle Code § 27803 is a universal helmet law — every motorcycle rider and passenger of every age must wear a DOT-compliant helmet that meets federal FMVSS 218 standards. Helmet non-use is itself a traffic violation. In an injury claim, helmet non-use can be raised as comparative fault as to head and neck injury damages under California's pure comparative fault rule, but it does not bar recovery for the rest of the damages or for the underlying crash itself.
Yes. California follows pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975). No fault percentage bars your recovery — even if you were 90% at fault, you still collect 10% of your damages from the other driver. This is a more claimant-friendly rule than Texas or Pennsylvania, both of which bar recovery at 51%. The fight in a California motorcycle case is always over how fault is allocated, not whether you can recover at all.
Lane splitting is legal in California under Cal. Veh. Code § 21658.1. The defense will sometimes argue that the splitting was done at an unsafe speed or under unsafe conditions, which can support a partial comparative fault argument under Li v. Yellow Cab. CHP's lane-splitting safety guidelines are commonly cited as the reasonableness benchmark — generally, splitting at speeds no more than 10 mph above surrounding traffic and only when traffic is moving at 30 mph or less. An attorney will use the actual crash data, witness statements, and CHP guidance to defeat exaggerated comparative fault claims.
All legal information on this page is sourced from primary government statutes. Last verified 2026-04-07.
In-depth articles relevant to your motorcycle accident lawyer case.
Motorcycle Accident Bias: Why Riders Face Unfair Treatment
Motorcycle accident victims face insurance bias and jury prejudice. Learn how this bias affects your claim and how an attorney combats it.
How to Deal With Insurance Companies After an Accident (2026 Guide)
Learn how to deal with insurance adjusters after an accident. Avoid common traps, protect your claim, and maximize your settlement.
How Long Does a Personal Injury Case Take? (2026 Timeline)
Understand the typical timeline of a personal injury case from filing to settlement. Learn what factors speed up or delay your claim.
Different type of accident? We connect victims with attorneys across all six practice areas.
Collected by partner attorneys for injured clients. California and Pennsylvania reviews prioritized.
“After my crash, I did not know whether to talk to the insurance company first or get treatment documented. The attorney explained the timeline and what evidence mattered.”
— California accident review, Los Angeles, CA
“I did not understand Pennsylvania limited tort or why the adjuster kept asking about my policy. Getting matched with someone local helped me know what questions to ask.”
— Pennsylvania accident review, Philadelphia, PA
Informational only. GetAccidentLawyerNow is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Every case is unique.
Don't wait. The 2 years statute of limitations is ticking.
Call (267) 212-1034 Now*Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is unique.