Hollywood Motorcycle Accident Lawyer

Lane Splitting, Stated Accurately

California is the only state that has legislated on this, and the statute does something subtler than people assume. It defines lane splitting as riding a two wheeled motorcycle between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, and it permits the Highway Patrol to develop educational guidelines. It does not, in its own words, legalize anything. Lane splitting is lawful here because nothing prohibits it.

The guidance itself matters. There is a widespread belief that the CHP withdrew its lane splitting guidelines and never replaced them. That was 2014 and it is long out of date. The CHP publishes safety tips today, including that danger rises with speed differential, that it is generally safer to split between the far left lanes, and that riding on the shoulder is illegal and is not lane splitting.

Two points that protect a rider. Those tips carry an express disclaimer that they are not guaranteed to keep anyone safe, so they are education rather than a legal standard, and an insurer treating them as a code of conduct is overstating them. And the same page tells drivers that lane splitting is legal and that deliberately blocking or impeding a motorcyclist in a way that could cause harm is itself unlawful.

The Left Turn, and the Half Nobody Quotes

The classic motorcycle collision is a car turning left across a rider going straight. The statute requires the turning driver to yield to oncoming vehicles close enough to be a hazard at any point during the turn, and to keep yielding until the turn can be made safely.

That is the half a rider's lawyer quotes. The next subsection is the half the defense quotes, and it is real: once the turning driver has yielded and signaled, the oncoming traffic must yield to them. That sentence is where every argument about your speed and your visibility gets its statutory footing.

So the fight is about sequence. Had the driver actually yielded before committing, and was the rider close enough to be a hazard at the moment the turn began. That is answered with sight lines, timing and physical evidence rather than with assertion.

Helmets, and an Honest Answer About Damages

California requires a helmet for every rider and passenger at every age. The requirement is specific about what counts: it must meet the federal standard, be fastened with the straps, and fit without excessive movement. A helmet perched on the head unfastened does not satisfy it.

Now the question insurers raise, and the honest answer. Can not wearing one, or wearing a non-compliant one, reduce what you recover? Nobody knows. There is no published California appellate decision on it. The Judicial Council's standard jury instructions do not contain the word helmet anywhere, and the instruction slots immediately after the seat belt defense sit empty, marked reserved for future use.

Be careful of anyone who answers that question with confidence in either direction. What can be said is that the seat belt defense exists in California, that the seat belt statute expressly excludes motorcycles from its protective language, and that the helmet statute contains no equivalent protection either. A defendant will push on that gap. It has not yet been resolved.

Worth knowing too that where the seat belt defense fails, it usually fails on proof. The defendant has to show the injuries would actually have been avoided or been less severe, and that takes expert evidence rather than an assertion.

Partial Fault Reduces, It Does Not Bar

California apportions. Being found partly responsible reduces a recovery by that share rather than ending the claim, which is why insurers invest so heavily in the visibility and speed arguments even when liability is obvious.

Conspicuity, speed and experience are not legal doctrines, whatever an adjuster implies. There is no rule in California law about motorcyclist visibility. They are factual arguments, and they are answered with facts.

Deadlines and the Courthouse

Two years from the crash. Six months to present a written claim if a public entity is involved, which includes a claim that a road surface, a work zone or a signal contributed.

Worth knowing that most of Hollywood's main streets are city streets rather than state highways, so that claim goes to the City of Los Angeles. Santa Monica Boulevard is the exception, and only east of La Brea Avenue, where it is a state route.

A filed Hollywood case is heard downtown at the Stanley Mosk courthouse.

Legal Disclaimer

This page is provided by Etehad Law for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The attorney responsible for this communication is Simon P. Etehad, Esq. (California State Bar No. 186449), Etehad Law, Beverly Hills, California. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.