- About Us
- Practice Areas
- Case Results
- Client Journey
- Giving Back
- Locations
- Español
- Blog
- Contact Us
Some Washington motorcycle laws govern the machine and the ride: what counts as a motorcycle, who can operate one, what equipment it carries, where it can go in a lane, who can ride on the back. Others take over after a crash: which insurance applies, how fault gets divided, what a case is worth, how long there is to bring one.
| Statute | What it requires | How it comes into an injury case |
|---|---|---|
| RCW 46.04.330 | Defines a motorcycle | Decides which rules and which insurance coverage apply |
| RCW 46.20.500 | Motorcycle endorsement | Raised by the defense as a comparative fault argument |
| RCW 46.30.020 | Liability insurance required | Sets the floor on available coverage |
| RCW 46.37.530 | Helmet, mirrors, eye protection, no child under five | Supports a failure-to-mitigate argument on head injuries |
| RCW 46.37.527 | Front and rear brakes | Maintenance and defect questions after a crash |
| RCW 46.61.608 | Full use of a lane, no lane splitting | Supports or undercuts fault depending on lane position |
| RCW 46.61.610 | Passenger seat and footrests | Governs injured passenger cases |
| RCW 46.61.611 | Handlebar height limit | Modification evidence when handlebars affect rider control |
| RCW 46.61.612 | Position of feet | Rider positioning raised in a reaction-time argument |
| RCW 46.61.614 | No clinging to other vehicles | Direct evidence of negligence when a rider held onto a vehicle |
| RCW 46.61.502 | Driving under the influence | Treated as negligence per se |
| RCW 46.37.537 | Exhaust and noise limits | Modification evidence when exhaust changes are at issue |
| RCW 4.22.005 | Pure comparative fault | Controls how shared fault reduces recovery |
| RCW 4.22.015 | Defines fault | Opens the door to failure-to-mitigate arguments |
| RCW 5.40.050 | Effect of a statutory violation | Turns a citation into evidence of negligence |
| RCW 48.22.030 | Underinsured motorist coverage | Contains a motorcycle exception |
| RCW 48.22.085 | Personal injury protection offer | Reaches automobile policies, not motorcycle policies |
| RCW 4.16.080 | Three-year deadline | Ends the right to sue |
How Washington labels the vehicle decides which rules apply to it and whether insurance is even required.
RCW 46.04.330 defines a motorcycle as a motor vehicle designed to travel on no more than three wheels, not counting stabilizing conversion kits, on which the driver either rides on a seat or saddle with handlebar steering, or rides on a seat in a partially or completely enclosed seating area with safety belts and steering wheel controls. Trikes and sidecar rigs fall inside the definition. Farm tractors, power wheelchairs, electric personal assistive mobility devices, motorized foot scooters, electric-assisted bicycles, and mopeds are written out of it.
A moped and a motorized foot scooter are written out of the motorcycle definition. A motor-driven cycle stays inside it.
Classification changes the insurance picture. RCW 46.30.020 exempts motor-driven cycles, mopeds, and wheeled all-terrain vehicles from the mandatory liability insurance requirement. Motorcycles are absent from that exemption list, so a motorcycle owner carries the same insurance obligation as a car owner.
RCW 46.20.500 prohibits driving a two-wheeled or three-wheeled motorcycle or a motor-driven cycle without a driver's license specially endorsed by the director of the Department of Licensing. Riding without the endorsement is a traffic infraction carrying the base penalty plus an additional monetary penalty of $250, which goes into the motorcycle safety education account.
The same section lists two exceptions. Anyone sixteen or older with a valid driver's license can operate a moped without a special examination, and the enclosed-cab motorcycle described in RCW 46.04.330(2), the type with a steering wheel and seat belts, can be operated on a regular driver's license. A motorcycle fitted with a stabilizing conversion kit still requires the three-wheeled endorsement.
An applicant under eighteen needs the signature of a parent, guardian, employer, or responsible adult, and has to complete a motorcycle safety education course meeting Department of Licensing standards before receiving the endorsement, per RCW 46.20.100.
A rider without the endorsement can still recover. Washington splits fault by percentage instead of ending the case, so the question becomes how much the missing endorsement had to do with the crash. A driver who turns left in front of a rider caused that collision whether or not the rider was endorsed.
RCW 46.37.530 makes it unlawful to operate or ride upon a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or moped on a state highway, county road, or city street without a motorcycle helmet. Operators and passengers are covered alike, with no exception written in for age or riding experience, and the neck or chin strap has to be fastened securely while the vehicle is in motion.
A qualifying helmet has a hard outer shell, padding adjacent to and inside that shell, and a neck or chin strap retention system, with the manufacturer's certification applied in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 571.218 showing the helmet meets United States Department of Transportation standards. Selling or offering to sell a helmet that fails those requirements is also unlawful.
The same statute adds three more requirements.
RCW 46.37.527 requires brakes operating on both the front and rear wheels unless the motorcycle was originally manufactured without both, with an exception for restored motorcycles over twenty-five years old being ridden to or from an antique or classic event. Parking brakes are not required, and a sidecar wheel needs no brake of its own.
RCW 46.61.611 prohibits operating a motorcycle on a public highway with handlebars or grips more than thirty inches higher than the operator's seat or saddle.
RCW 46.37.537 prohibits modifying a motorcycle exhaust system in a way that amplifies engine noise above what the originally installed muffler emitted. WAC 173-62-030 adds that every motor vehicle on public highways needs an exhaust system and muffler in good working order and constant operation.
An equipment violation becomes relevant when the equipment relates to the collision itself, as when a worn brake or a missing mirror connects to how the crash unfolded.
RCW 46.61.608(1) entitles every motorcycle to full use of a lane and prohibits any motor vehicle from being driven in a manner that deprives a motorcycle of that full use. Subsection (1) gives an injured rider an affirmative provision to point at when a driver merges into occupied space and then tells an adjuster the motorcycle was sharing the lane.
RCW 46.61.608(3) prohibits lane splitting: operating a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles. Washington draws no distinction between splitting moving traffic and filtering through stopped traffic, so both fall inside the prohibition.
Proposals to change the rule have been introduced more than once without being enacted, including House Bill 1367 in the 2025 session, which would allow limited use of the right shoulder on limited access roadways in slow traffic. Until a bill passes, the prohibition stands as written.
Overtaking and passing in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken is barred by RCW 46.61.608(2), with an exception for passing a pedestrian or bicyclist at a distance of at least three feet. Subsection (4) limits motorcycles to two abreast in a single lane. Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to police officers performing official duties.
RCW 46.61.612 prohibits riding with both feet placed on the same side of the motorcycle, and RCW 46.61.614 prohibits attaching or clinging to another vehicle on a roadway.
RCW 46.61.610 requires the operator to ride only on the permanent and regular seat attached to the motorcycle, and permits a passenger only where the motorcycle is designed to carry more than one rider. A passenger rides on a seat firmly attached at the rear or side of the operator, or in a sidecar or enclosed cab, and footrests are required for any passenger the motorcycle is designed to carry.
RCW 46.37.530 separately prohibits transporting a child under five.
An injured passenger occupies a different position from either driver. A passenger is almost never assigned fault for how the collision occurred, and can pursue the at-fault driver, the rider carrying them, or both. Layered coverage frequently comes into play, since the rider's liability policy, the other driver's liability policy, and the passenger's own household coverage may each respond.
RCW 46.61.502 makes it a crime to drive a vehicle in Washington with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher within two hours after driving, with a THC concentration of 5.00 or higher within two hours after driving, or while under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug, or any combination of them. Being entitled to use a drug under Washington law is no defense to the charge. A violation is a gross misdemeanor except where the statute elevates it.
The civil consequence is the reason impairment changes a case. RCW 5.40.050 provides that a breach of a duty imposed by statute is not negligence per se and may be weighed by the trier of fact as evidence of negligence, and then names driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug as one of the exceptions treated as negligence per se. Where the driver who hit you was impaired, that carve-out removes a step from your proof.
The same rule applies when a motorcycle rider was impaired and injured someone else.
Washington’s comparative fault rules split fault by percentage. RCW 4.22.005 reduces what an injured rider collects by that rider's share of the blame, and being partly at fault never ends the case. A rider found 40 percent at fault collects 60 percent of proven damages. A rider found 70 percent at fault still collects 30 percent.
RCW 4.22.015 defines fault broadly. Careless and reckless driving count, and so do two other things: unreasonably accepting a known risk, and unreasonably failing to avoid an injury or keep it from getting worse. Defense attorneys in motorcycle cases rely on that last part, since it lets them argue that something the rider did before the crash made the injuries worse than they had to be.
A citation issued to the at-fault driver can serve as evidence of negligence. RCW 5.40.050 makes a breach of a statutory duty something the trier of fact may weigh as evidence of negligence, and stops short of treating the violation as negligence in itself. Proof still has to show the driver failed to use reasonable care and that the failure caused the injuries.
Pure comparative fault applies to helmet use the same way it applies to every other fault question. A defense attorney will typically argue that the absence of a helmet was an unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages, which fits the RCW 4.22.015 definition, and will ask for a percentage reduction.
A helmet argument only reaches injuries a helmet could have affected. Requirements of causal relation apply to contributory fault under RCW 4.22.015, so the defense generally has to connect the absence of a helmet to the specific injuries claimed. A fractured femur, a degloved forearm, and abdominal trauma fall outside that argument regardless of what the rider wore on the head.
Every statute above runs the other direction as well. A driver or pedestrian struck by a motorcycle proves fault the same way. The rider's speed, lane position, endorsement status, impairment, and equipment condition all serve as evidence of negligence, and any fault of the injured party reduces recovery by the same percentage.
RCW 46.30.020 applies the mandatory coverage requirement to motor vehicles subject to registration and exempts motor-driven cycles, mopeds, and wheeled all-terrain vehicles. Motorcycles are not on that exemption list.
Minimum limits are $25,000 for bodily injury or death of one person, $50,000 for bodily injury or death of two or more people in one accident, and $10,000 for property damage. A single air transport, a trauma admission, and one orthopedic surgery can consume a $25,000 policy before rehabilitation starts, which is why identifying every layer of available coverage becomes one of the first steps in a serious motorcycle case.
Standard PIP does not cover motorcycle injuries. The Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner lists motorcycles alongside mopeds, farm equipment, and off-road vehicles as excluded from PIP, and notes that PIP coverage for a motorcycle can sometimes be purchased at a higher price.
The statutes behind that result: RCW 48.22.085 requires PIP to be offered on automobile liability policies, and RCW 48.22.005 defines an automobile as a passenger car. A motorcycle is not a passenger car, so the requirement never reaches a motorcycle policy. The practical effect for an injured rider is that the no-fault medical coverage that pays the first round of bills after a car crash is frequently absent after a motorcycle crash, which puts more weight on health insurance and on underinsured motorist coverage.
RCW 48.22.030(2) requires underinsured motorist coverage on motor vehicle liability policies issued in Washington, then carves out an exception for injuries suffered while operating or occupying a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle. Auto UIM coverage may not reach a rider on the bike, depending on how the policy is written.
Two subsections of the same statute give you something to check. Subsection (9) requires an insurance company writing motorcycle coverage in Washington to provide information about underinsured coverage to prospective insureds, and subsection (10) requires it to give named insureds who purchased motorcycle liability coverage a written opportunity to reject underinsured coverage. Whether a rejection was obtained the way the statute describes is a question your attorney can raise.
A driver who forces a rider down without ever making contact is a phantom vehicle under RCW 48.22.030(8). Coverage in that situation depends on two conditions being met: the facts of the accident have to be corroborated by competent evidence beyond the testimony of the insured or anyone else with an underinsured motorist claim from the same crash, and the accident has to be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency within seventy-two hours.
RCW 4.16.080(2) sets three years as the statute of limitations for personal injury. Wrongful death actions run on the same three-year period, measured from the date of death.
RCW 4.20.010 gives the personal representative of the estate the right to bring a wrongful death action, and RCW 4.20.020 identifies who benefits from it: a spouse, state registered domestic partner, or child or children including stepchildren, and if none of those survive, the parents or siblings of the deceased. A 2019 amendment removed the older requirement that parents and siblings show financial dependence before recovering.
A crash traced to road design, signal timing, pavement condition, or a government vehicle adds a procedural layer. Claims against the State of Washington go to the Office of Risk Management under RCW 4.92.100, and claims against a city, county, or other local entity go to that entity's designated agent under RCW 4.96.020. In both situations a lawsuit cannot be commenced until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim is presented, and the limitation period is tolled during those sixty days.
Economic damages cover measurable losses, and in a motorcycle case they commonly reach:
Noneconomic damages cover harm without a receipt attached, including physical pain, permanent scarring and disfigurement, loss of the activities the victim built life around, and emotional harm tied to the injury. Washington has no operative cap on noneconomic damages, since the Washington Supreme Court held in Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (1989), that the statutory limit conflicted with the state constitutional right to a jury trial.
Injuries in rider cases tend toward the severe. Traumatic brain injury, road rash requiring skin grafts, orthopedic damage repaired with plates and rods, spinal injury, and amputation appear regularly in the Washington motorcycle cases Freeman Law Firm litigates, and proving the cost of a lifetime of care in those cases generally takes a life care planner along with treating-physician testimony.
Several categories of proof have short lives:
A recorded statement to the other driver's insurance company is a request you are allowed to decline until you have talked with an attorney.
Yes. RCW 46.37.530 requires every operator and passenger on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or moped to wear a DOT-certified motorcycle helmet on state highways, county roads, and city streets, with the strap fastened while the vehicle is in motion. No age or experience exception exists.
Yes. Washington's pure comparative fault rule reduces recovery in proportion to assigned fault without barring it, and a helmet argument only reaches injuries a helmet could have prevented or lessened.
No. RCW 46.61.608 prohibits riding between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles, and the prohibition covers filtering through stopped traffic as well as splitting moving traffic.
Yes, for a two-wheeled or three-wheeled motorcycle or a motor-driven cycle. Riding without one is a traffic infraction carrying the base penalty plus $250. A moped can be operated by anyone sixteen or older with a valid driver's license.
Yes. Motorcycles are absent from the exemption list in RCW 46.30.020, so the mandatory liability requirement applies, with minimum limits of $25,000, $50,000, and $10,000.
Usually not. The statutory requirement that PIP be offered applies to automobile policies, and an automobile is defined as a passenger car, so a motorcycle policy falls outside the requirement. Check your own policy language, because coverage varies by carrier.
Three years from the date of the crash for injury cases, and three years from the date of death for wrongful death cases. Cases against a state or local government entity carry additional presentment steps before suit.
Underinsured motorist coverage becomes the primary source of recovery, though Washington law permits that coverage to be excluded while a rider is operating or occupying a motorcycle. Reviewing your declarations page and any written rejection you signed is the starting point.
Yes. Fault is proved the same way against a rider as against any other driver, using speed, lane position, impairment, endorsement status, and equipment condition. Where the rider carries minimum limits, your own underinsured motorist coverage frequently supplies the larger share of recovery.
Freeman Law Firm represents injured riders, passengers, drivers, and grieving families from offices in Tacoma, Renton, and Olympia, and has recovered millions of dollars for Washington injury victims. Call (253) 383-4500 or send us an email for a free consultation.
Disclaimer: The information on this website is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Viewing or using this site does not create an attorney-client relationship with Freeman Law Firm, Inc. Case results depend on specific facts and cannot be guaranteed. For legal guidance for your individual situation, contact our office for a consultation.