CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Liability for a Motorcycle Lane-Splitting Accident

Posted on behalf of Arnold Law Firm in
motorcycle-handle-bars-viewLane-splitting – when a motorcycle passes a vehicle in the same lane – is legal in California. But, how safe is it? If an accident occurs while a motorcyclist is lane-splitting, can the rider be held liable?

Determining Liability for Lane-Splitting Crashes

When a lane-splitting accident occurs, the insurance companies will investigate who was at fault and assess the factors in the accident to determine its cause. Liability can be complicated in these cases, so it is recommended that you consult with an experienced attorney about an accident involving lane-splitting. The focus of the liability investigation will likely be on whether the motorcyclist split lanes safely. If the motorcyclist conducted this maneuver in an unsafe manner, such as by speeding or cutting off other vehicles, the rider may be found at fault for the accident. However, if the motorcyclist did the maneuver safely, he or she might not be found at fault.

State Guidelines on Lane-Splitting

California does not have any official guidelines on lane splitting, however motorcyclists are encouraged to exercise extreme caution when traveling between lanes of stopped or slow-moving traffic. Here are common-sense safety tips for lane splitting in a safe manner:
  • Consider the width of lanes, the size of surrounding vehicles, traffic conditions, weather conditions and lighting conditions before attempting to lane split
  • Try to split between far-left lanes when possible
  • Avoid lane-splitting next to large vehicles
  • Riding on the shoulder is not lane splitting and is illegal
  • Wear brightly colored clothing and use high beams to increase your visibility
  • Avoid blind spots of other vehicles, especially large trucks

Is Lane-Splitting Safe?

A 2015 study conducted by the California Office of Traffic Safety analyzed data on 5,969 motorcyclists who were involved in traffic collisions between June 2012 and August 2013. Researchers found 17 percent or 997 of these motorcyclists were lane-splitting at the time of their collision. Motorcyclists who were lane-splitting were more often riding on a weekday, during commute hours, wore helmets and were traveling at lower speeds. They were less likely to have been impaired or carrying a passenger. These motorcyclists were much less likely to be injured during the accident when compared with other motorcyclists who were injured in other types of motorcycle accidents. They were less likely to suffer a head, torso, extremity or fatal injury. However, they were equally likely to suffer a neck injury. Since lane-splitting may be perceived as a dangerous driving behavior by the insurance company, it could be considered a factor when evaluating a claim.

Contact a Trusted Attorney After an Accident

If you were injured in a collision involving lane-splitting, discuss your situation with a licensed attorney. The Sacramento motorcycle accident lawyers at Arnold Law Firm can review the details of your accident and advise you on whether you have a viable claim. You may be eligible to pursue compensation for damages. Our lawyers charge no upfront fees and work on a contingency fee basis, so you are not charged unless we successfully recover compensation on your behalf.

Contact us today at (916) 777-7777 to schedule your free evaluation.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.