Motorcycle Accidents

Two things decide most California motorcycle cases, and neither is the crash.

The first is an assumption — that the rider was going too fast, or was where they should not have been. It is made by adjusters, by witnesses, and sometimes by the responding officer.

The second is Proposition 213, which can erase every dollar of a rider's pain and suffering if their own registration lapsed.

Lane splitting is defined in the Vehicle Code, and it is not an offence

Vehicle Code § 21658.1(a) defines lane splitting as

"driving a motorcycle … between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, including on both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways."

§ 21658.1(b) directs the California Highway Patrol to "develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist and the drivers and passengers of the surrounding vehicles", and § 21658.1(c) requires the CHP to consult the DMV, Caltrans, the Office of Traffic Safety and motorcycle safety organisations in doing it.

Read what that section does and does not do. It defines the manoeuvre and it directs the CHP to write guidelines. It does not prohibit lane splitting, and it does not make it an infraction.

That distinction matters in a case, because the defence version of a lane-splitting collision usually starts from the premise that the rider was doing something unlawful. They were not. The question is the ordinary one — whether each party used reasonable care — and it is answered under Civil Code § 1714 and Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, not by a rule that does not exist.

Proposition 213 hits riders harder than drivers

Civil Code § 3333.4(a)(2) bars non-economic damages for the owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident, and (a)(3) for an operator who cannot establish financial responsibility.

A motorcycle that has been sitting through the winter with lapsed coverage is exactly the fact pattern this statute was written to catch — and it applies even when the other driver ran the light.

The narrow way out: § 3333.4(c) preserves non-economic damages for an uninsured owner under (a)(2) who was hit by a driver operating in violation of Vehicle Code § 23152 or § 23153 and convicted of that offence. A conviction, not an arrest.

What is never barred: medical bills, lost earnings, future care, and property damage. Those are economic damages, and § 3333.4 does not reach them.

And if you were riding for work — delivery, courier, inspection, any errand — the workers' compensation claim is untouched by Proposition 213 entirely. How both claims run together.

Helmets, and what a helmet argument is really about

California requires a helmet meeting federal standards for riders and passengers of any age. What a defence lawyer does with that is a comparative-fault argument, not a bar.

Under Li, damages are "diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering" — reduced, not eliminated. And the reduction has to be tied to the injury. A helmet argument is worth very little where the injuries are to the pelvis, the leg, or the shoulder, which is the majority of serious motorcycle trauma.

What to do this week

Do not let the bike be repaired, scrapped, or released by the tow yard. Impact damage, tyre marks and lever position are evidence.

Photograph your gear. Abrasion on a jacket, a scuffed helmet, and torn boots establish speed and body position more reliably than memory.

Get the traffic collision report and read the narrative, not just the party list. Fault assumptions get written into the narrative and then repeated for the life of the case.

Check the registration and insurance status on your own bike now, before an adjuster does it for you. If there is a Proposition 213 problem, it is far better to know in week one.

Common questions