{"id":6793,"date":"2026-09-02T10:56:08","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T10:56:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thelawyerworld.com\/blog\/?p=6793"},"modified":"2026-09-19T15:54:54","modified_gmt":"2026-09-19T15:54:54","slug":"lane-splitting-is-legal-in-california-but-insurers-still-use-it-to-cut-your-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thelawyerworld.com\/blog\/lane-splitting-is-legal-in-california-but-insurers-still-use-it-to-cut-your-claim\/","title":{"rendered":"Lane Splitting Is Legal in California but Insurers Still Use It to Cut Your Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A mechanic was riding his Kawasaki on the I-5 near the LA River during evening rush hour when a woman in a Lexus changed lanes without signalling and came to a stop at a 45 degree angle across the number one lane. He hit her car, went over the handlebars and the bike landed on top of him. Multiple injuries. The defence argued he was lane splitting and following too closely. The jury in LA Superior Court gave him\u00a0$3.7 million<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That was Case No. BC553756 (Nicholson v. Borok (Los Angeles Superior Court BC553756) in Los Angeles County and the reason it matters is that the rider was splitting lanes when the crash happened and still won, because in California lane splitting is not illegal, it is expressly authorised under Vehicle Code \u00a7 21658.1<\/a> and the fact that someone was doing it when they got hit does not automatically make the crash their fault. The fight in these cases is never about whether splitting is allowed. It is about whether the rider was doing it safely and whether the other driver was paying attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most LA riders already know splitting is legal. What a lot of them do not know is how hard insurers work to turn a legal manoeuvre into a reason to pay less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Statute Says It Is Legal but Does Not Say How Fast Is Too Fast<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Vehicle Code \u00a7 21658.1 went into effect January 1, 2017 after AB 51 passed. It defines lane splitting as a motorcycle being driven between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, travelling in the same direction. That is it. The statute does not set a maximum speed for splitting. Does not say you have to be within a certain speed of surrounding traffic. Does not put a number on anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The California Highway Patrol published safety guidelines that recommend keeping within 10 mph of surrounding traffic<\/strong> and avoiding splitting when traffic is moving at 30 mph or above<\/strong>. Those are guidelines. Recommendations. Not law. There is no Vehicle Code section that says splitting at 12 mph above surrounding traffic is a violation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here is where it gets messy in practice. Insurance adjusters treat those CHP guidelines as if they were the statute itself. A rider splitting at 15 mph above traffic flow gets told by the adjuster that they were “exceeding the recommended speed differential” and therefore contributed to the crash. The adjuster does not say “you broke the law” because the rider did not break the law. They say “you were riding outside recommended guidelines” and use that to push comparative fault up to a number that significantly reduces the payout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As David Catanese, managing attorney at\u00a0Sweet James in Los Angeles<\/a>, has said, the gap between the statute and the CHP guidelines is exactly where insurance companies operate in these cases. The statute gives riders the right to split. The guidelines give adjusters a number they can point to when they want to argue the rider was being unsafe. And because the guidelines are not law, the whole argument comes down to whether a jury thinks the rider was being reasonable under the conditions, which is a subjective call that depends heavily on how the evidence is presented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pure Comparative Fault Means Even an Imperfect Rider Can Recover<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

California does not have a fault threshold that bars recovery. Under Civil Code \u00a7 1714<\/a> and the Supreme Court decision in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (13 Cal. 3d 804, 1975), a rider who is found 80% at fault still recovers 20% of their damages. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff like Florida or Texas or most other states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For lane splitting cases that changes the entire dynamic because the insurer cannot win by proving the rider contributed to the crash. They can only reduce the payout by whatever percentage of fault they can get assigned to the rider. So a $500,000 claim where the rider is found 30% at fault still produces a $350,000 recovery. The insurer would obviously prefer to push that 30% higher, maybe to 50% or 60%, but even at 60% fault the rider collects $200,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compare that to a state with a 51% bar. Same crash, same facts, rider found 51% at fault, recovery is zero. That difference is why California’s pure comparative system matters specifically for lane splitting cases where some degree of shared fault is almost always going to be argued by the defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Adjusters Actually Look for After a Lane Splitting Crash<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The recorded statement call comes within a couple of days. The adjuster is friendly and asks open questions and every answer you give is being written down for later use. In a lane splitting case the specific things they are fishing for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n