Are Lane-Splitting Motorcyclists Ever Entitled to Compensation in Pennsylvania

Motorcycle accidents often result in severe, life-altering injuries, and questions about fault can become especially complex when a rider was splitting lanes at the time of the crash. Many injured motorcyclists in Pennsylvania assume that if they were riding between lanes of traffic, they are automatically barred from recovering compensation. Pennsylvania law is not that simple. While lane-splitting is prohibited under Pennsylvania law, a violation does not necessarily prevent an injured rider from pursuing a personal injury claim when their accident was caused by a negligent driver.

Understanding how Pennsylvania law treats lane-splitting, traffic violations, and comparative negligence is critical to evaluating whether compensation may still be available after a motorcycle accident. If you have been hurt while riding in Philadelphia, contact Benedum Law to speak with a skilled and dedicated Chestnut Hill motorcycle accident attorney.

What Is Lane-Splitting Under Pennsylvania Law?

Lane-splitting generally refers to a motorcyclist riding between lanes of stopped or slow-moving traffic, often to move ahead of congested vehicles. In some states, lane-splitting or lane-filtering is expressly permitted under defined conditions. Pennsylvania, however, does not allow this practice.

Section 3523(c) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code requires motorcycles to be operated entirely within a single lane and prohibits passing another vehicle within the same lane. Because lane-splitting involves riding between lanes or sharing a lane with another vehicle, it is considered unlawful in Pennsylvania. A motorcyclist who splits lanes may be cited for a traffic violation, even if traffic is stopped or moving extremely slowly.

However, the fact that lane-splitting is prohibited does not automatically resolve the issue of civil liability after an accident. Traffic citations and personal injury claims are governed by different legal standards.

Does Illegal Lane-Splitting Automatically Bar a Personal Injury Claim?

No. Under Pennsylvania law, a motorcyclist who was lane-splitting is not automatically prohibited from pursuing compensation after an accident. Civil liability is determined by negligence principles, not simply by whether a traffic law was violated.

Pennsylvania follows a modified comparative negligence system, and an injured party may recover damages as long as they are not more than 50 percent responsible for causing the accident. If the injured rider is found partially at fault, their compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault, rather than eliminated altogether.

This means that even if lane-splitting contributed to an accident, the motorcyclist may still recover compensation if the other driver’s negligence played a greater role in causing the crash.

In a lane-splitting motorcycle accident, the key question is not simply whether the rider violated a traffic law, but whether that violation was a substantial factor in causing the collision. Pennsylvania courts evaluate fault by examining the totality of the circumstances.

For example, a driver who abruptly changes lanes without signaling, opens a car door into traffic, or drives while distracted may still bear significant responsibility for a crash involving a lane-splitting motorcycle. Even though the rider was technically violating the Vehicle Code, the driver’s conduct may be found to be more dangerous or more directly responsible for the collision.

Under comparative negligence, a jury might find that a motorcyclist was 30 percent at fault for lane-splitting, while the driver was 70 percent at fault for failing to check mirrors or signal. In that scenario, the rider’s total damages would be reduced by 30 percent but not eliminated. In contrast, if the jury deemed the motorcyclist more than 50% responsible, the rider could not assert a civil claim against the negligent driver.

Traffic Violations as Evidence of Negligence

In Pennsylvania, violating a traffic safety law can be introduced as evidence of negligence, but it does not automatically establish liability. This distinction is critical in lane-splitting cases.

A traffic violation may be used to argue that a party failed to act with reasonable care under the circumstances. However, the injured rider could still show that the violation did not cause or even contribute to the accident. Simply showing that a motorcyclist was lane-splitting is not enough on its own to defeat a claim.

Conversely, if the other driver also violated traffic laws—such as by failing to signal, speeding, following too closely, or driving while distracted—that conduct may also be used as evidence of negligence. In many motorcycle accident cases, both parties’ actions are scrutinized, and fault is apportioned accordingly.

Negligence Per Se Versus Comparative Fault

Some accident victims worry that violating a traffic law means they are automatically negligent under a doctrine known as negligence per se. While negligence per se can apply in Pennsylvania, it does not end the analysis in personal injury cases involving shared fault.

Negligence per se generally means that a violation of a statute designed to protect public safety may establish the duty and breach elements of negligence. However, causation and damages must still be proven. Additionally, Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence statute still governs how fault is allocated.

In practical terms, even if a lane-splitting violation is treated as evidence of negligence, the court must still determine whether that conduct actually caused the collision and how much responsibility each party bears. A negligence per se argument does not automatically prevent recovery.

Common Scenarios Where Lane-Splitting Riders May Still Recover Compensation

Lane-splitting motorcycle accident claims often involve complex fact patterns. Situations where an injured rider may still have a viable claim include collisions caused by drivers who change lanes without warning, drivers who open doors into traffic, motorists who are texting or otherwise distracted, and drivers who make unsafe turns or sudden stops.

In these cases, the driver’s conduct may be found to be the primary cause of the accident, even if the motorcyclist was riding between lanes. Accident reconstruction, witness testimony, video evidence, and expert analysis often play a critical role in determining how the crash occurred.

Why Legal Representation Matters in Lane-Splitting Cases

Insurance companies frequently seize on lane-splitting as a reason to deny or undervalue motorcycle accident claims. Adjusters may argue that the rider assumed the risk or was entirely at fault, even when the evidence does not support that conclusion.

An experienced Pennsylvania motorcycle accident attorney can push back against these arguments by demonstrating how the driver’s negligence caused or contributed to the crash and by ensuring that fault is fairly apportioned under comparative negligence principles. Proper investigation can make the difference between a denied claim and meaningful compensation.

Contact a Philadelphia Motorcycle Accident Attorney at Benedum Law Today

Lane-splitting is prohibited under Pennsylvania law, but a motorcyclist who was lane-splitting at the time of an accident is not automatically barred from recovering compensation. Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence system allows injured riders to pursue damages as long as they are not more than 50 percent at fault, even when a traffic violation is involved.

Each case depends on its specific facts, including the actions of the motorcyclist, the conduct of the driver, and whether the traffic violation actually caused the accident. If you were injured in a motorcycle crash involving lane-splitting, speaking with an experienced personal injury attorney can help you understand your rights and evaluate your options.

Benedum Law represents injured motorcyclists throughout Philadelphia and the surrounding areas. We understand how Pennsylvania traffic laws and negligence principles intersect, and we work to hold negligent drivers accountable while protecting the rights of injured riders. Contact us today for a free consultation.