Michigan
Motorcycle Accident Laws in Michigan (2026): Deadlines & Helmets
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

A Michigan motorcycle crash is a personal injury case, but Michigan stands out for two reasons: its unique no-fault auto system treats motorcycles very differently from cars, and since 2012 the state has had only a partial helmet law. On top of those sit the same core questions in every injury claim, the deadline to sue and the fault rule. This guide explains how those rules work for Michigan riders. It is general legal information and attorney advertising, not legal advice.
The deadline to sue in Michigan
The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim in Michigan is three years from the date of the crash, set by MCL 600.5805, which fixes a three-year period for all actions to recover damages for injury to a person or property. A wrongful death claim arising from a fatal crash follows the same three-year period and is brought by the personal representative of the estate, with the clock generally running from the date of death.
The three-year deadline is firm and missing it usually ends the case. Separately, no-fault PIP benefits carry their own one-year filing rule and a related limit on how far back medical expenses can be recovered, so a rider needs to act quickly on the benefits side as well as the lawsuit side. Claims against a government entity can carry shorter notice deadlines.
Fault rule: comparative fault with a bar on pain and suffering
Michigan's fault rule has two layers. Before any noneconomic damages can be pursued at all, Michigan's no-fault threshold statute, MCL 500.3135, requires that the injury involve death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement; if the injury does not meet that threshold, pain-and-suffering damages are barred regardless of fault. If the threshold is met, MCL 600.2959 then governs how fault affects the claim: your economic damages, such as medical bills and lost wages, are reduced by your percentage of fault no matter how high that percentage is, but noneconomic damages, the pain-and-suffering portion of a claim, are barred entirely if your fault is greater than the combined fault of everyone else. In plain terms, you can recover pain-and-suffering damages only if your injury meets the MCL 500.3135 threshold and you are 50 percent or less at fault; at 51 percent or more, or if the threshold is not met, you get nothing for noneconomic loss, though your economic damages are still reduced rather than eliminated.
For riders, this matters because insurers routinely argue the motorcyclist shares blame. Pushing a rider past the 50 percent line is how a defendant tries to wipe out the pain-and-suffering portion of a claim, so documenting the other driver's fault is critical.
No-fault insurance and how motorcycles are treated
Michigan has a no-fault auto system, but motorcycles are not motor vehicles under it, and that single fact drives everything about a motorcyclist's claim. A motorcycle owner does not buy PIP the way a car owner does. Instead, when a motorcyclist is injured in a crash involving a motor vehicle, MCL 500.3114 sets an order of priority for who pays the rider's PIP benefits. That order generally begins with the insurer of the owner of the involved motor vehicle, then the insurer of the driver of that vehicle, and then the motorcyclist's own auto policy if one exists.

Michigan's 2019 no-fault reform, effective in 2020, lets drivers choose among PIP medical coverage levels under MCL 500.3107c, ranging from a 50,000 dollar Medicaid-tied option up to unlimited coverage, with 250,000 and 500,000 dollar tiers in between. Because an injured motorcyclist draws benefits from the involved car's policy, the rider's available PIP can be capped at whatever level that driver selected. Critically, in a motorcycle-only crash with no motor vehicle involved, there may be no PIP available at all, which is why a Michigan rider's own first-party medical coverage, including any coverage carried to satisfy the helmet exemption, is so important.
Michigan helmet law
Michigan repealed its universal helmet requirement in 2012 and now has a partial law under MCL 257.658. Operators and passengers under 21 must wear an approved crash helmet. A rider 21 or older may operate or ride without a helmet only if specific conditions are met: the operator must have held a motorcycle endorsement for at least two years or have passed an approved motorcycle safety course, and the rider must carry first-party medical benefits security of at least 20,000 dollars in the event of a motorcycle accident. A passenger 21 or older may also ride without a helmet where the required first-party medical coverage is in place.
The helmet exemption is therefore tied directly to insurance. The 20,000 dollar first-party medical coverage that lets an eligible adult ride bare-headed is also the coverage that can matter most after a crash, particularly a motorcycle-only crash where no auto PIP applies.
Helmet non-use and your case
Because Michigan allows eligible adults to ride without a helmet, the question of whether non-use can be raised against an injured rider can come up. A defendant may argue that a rider who lawfully chose not to wear a helmet contributed to head injuries, and Michigan's comparative fault statute governs how any such argument affects recovery, reducing economic damages by the rider's share of fault and barring noneconomic damages entirely if the rider is more than 50 percent at fault overall, on top of the separate MCL 500.3135 threshold that requires death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement before any noneconomic damages can be pursued in the first place. Whether a helmet issue is admitted and how it is weighed is fact-specific and best evaluated by a Michigan attorney on the records of the case.
Lane splitting and lane filtering
Lane splitting and lane filtering are not legal in Michigan. Under the lane-use rules in MCL 257.660, a motorcycle is entitled to full use of a lane, but riding between lanes of traffic or between rows of vehicles is not permitted. A rider who was splitting lanes at the time of a crash can expect that conduct to be raised in the fault analysis. Legislative proposals to allow low-speed lane filtering have been introduced but have not become law, so riders should treat the practice as prohibited.

Damage caps and minimum insurance
Michigan does not cap ordinary compensatory damages in a motorcycle injury case, so there is no general ceiling on medical expenses, lost income, or pain and suffering, subject to the comparative fault rule above. Certain categories of claims, such as some product liability and medical malpractice actions, have their own caps that a lawyer can flag where relevant.
For the at-fault side, Michigan's reform raised the minimum bodily injury liability limits for cars to 250,000 dollars per person and 500,000 dollars per accident by default, although drivers may elect lower limits of 50,000 and 100,000 dollars in writing. Motorcycle owners must carry the same residual bodily injury liability limits as other vehicles under MCL 500.3103 and 500.3009(1): 250,000 dollars per person and 500,000 dollars per accident by default (with a written opt-down floor of 50,000/100,000), plus 10,000 dollars for property damage. Because these floors can be low relative to a serious motorcycle injury, the at-fault driver's actual limits and the rider's own coverage often determine what is collectible.
Why motorcycle cases are different
Motorcycle crashes tend to cause far more serious injuries than car crashes, which means higher medical costs, larger claims, and a more aggressive insurance defense. Michigan riders also face the specific issues above: the partial helmet law tied to insurance, the unusual no-fault priority order that can leave a rider with limited or no PIP, the rule that pain-and-suffering damages disappear once a rider is more than half at fault, and Michigan's separate MCL 500.3135 threshold that bars any noneconomic damages unless the injury involves death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement. A documented bias against motorcyclists among some jurors and adjusters is one more reason that careful, contemporaneous documentation matters.
Evidence and how to evaluate your options
If you or a family member was hurt in a Michigan motorcycle crash, get medical care and keep every record, obtain the police report, photograph the scene, the bike, and your gear, and save the other driver's information and any witness contacts. Then speak promptly with a licensed Michigan attorney, both because of the three-year lawsuit deadline and the much shorter one-year window for no-fault benefits, and because early evidence is often decisive. Most motorcycle accident attorneys offer a free consultation and work on a contingency basis, meaning no upfront fee and payment only out of any recovery. No reputable lawyer can promise an outcome or a dollar amount, and reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue after a motorcycle accident in Michigan?
Generally three years from the crash for a personal injury claim under MCL 600.5805, and a wrongful death claim follows the same three-year period, usually running from the date of death. No-fault PIP benefits carry a separate, shorter one-year filing rule, and claims against a government entity can have shorter notice deadlines, so confirm the timeline with an attorney quickly.
Is failing to wear a helmet going to hurt my case in Michigan?
Michigan has a partial helmet law (MCL 257.658). Riders and passengers under 21 must wear a helmet, while those 21 and older may ride without one if they meet experience and first-party medical coverage conditions. If a rider lawfully went without a helmet, a defendant may argue it contributed to head injuries, and Michigan's comparative fault statute governs how that affects recovery. It is fact-specific, and a Michigan attorney can evaluate it on your records.
Is lane splitting legal in Michigan?
No. Lane splitting and lane filtering are not legal in Michigan; under MCL 257.660 a motorcycle gets full use of a lane but may not ride between lanes or rows of vehicles. Splitting lanes at the time of a crash can be raised against a rider in the fault analysis. Proposals to allow low-speed filtering have not become law.
How much is a motorcycle accident case worth?
There is no set figure. Value depends on the injuries, the evidence, the fault rule, and the available insurance, and no one can promise an amount. Michigan does not cap ordinary compensatory damages, but pain-and-suffering recovery is barred unless the injury meets Michigan's no-fault threshold under MCL 500.3135 (death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement) and is barred outright if you are more than 50 percent at fault, and the PIP coverage level on the involved car's policy and the at-fault driver's liability limits often shape what is collectible.
Injured in Michigan? Get a free case review from a personal-injury attorney
If someone else's negligence caused your injury, you may be owed compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Get a free, no-obligation review from a Michigan personal-injury attorney. Most work on contingency, so there is no upfront cost.
Updates
Updated Michigan's motorcycle liability insurance minimums to the post-2019-reform defaults (250/500/10, with a written opt-down floor of 50/100).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Added Michigan's separate no-fault injury threshold (MCL 500.3135), which bars any pain-and-suffering claim unless the injury involves death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement, on top of the comparative-fault bar already described.
Fixed a punctuation typo introduced by the previous correction.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 500.3135Tort liability for noneconomic loss; exceptions; cause of action for damages; "serious impairment of body function" definedIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement. (2) For a cause of action for damages under subsection (1) or (3)(d), all of the following apply: (a) The issues of whether the injured person has suffered serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement are questions of law for the court if the court finds either of the following: (i) There is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person's injuries. (ii) There is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person's injuries, but the dispute is not material to the determination whether the person has suffered a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement. However, for a closed-head injury, a question of fact for the jury is created if a licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician who regularly diagnoses or treats closed-head injuries testifies under oath that there may be a serious neurological injury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-10 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 651 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rory v. Continental Insurance (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 473 Mich. 457)“…ed motorist becomes liable for noneconomic loss pursuant to MCL 500.3135(1). Liability for noneconomic loss occu…”
- McCORMICK v. CARRIER (Michigan Supreme Court 2010, 487 Mich. 180)“…y function” threshold for non-economic tort liability under MCL 500.3135. We hold that Kreiner v Fischer, 471…”
- Johnson v. Recca (Michigan Supreme Court 2012, 492 Mich. 169)“…(dissenting). This Court granted leave to examine whether MCL 500.3135(3)(c) permits recov *198 ery of expense…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Car Accident Laws: No-Fault, PIP Tiers, and Your Claim, Truck Accident Laws in Michigan (2026): Deadlines & Liability
§ 600.2959Comparative fault; reduced damagesIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the court shall reduce the damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306 or 6306a, as applicable. If that person's percentage of fault is greater than the aggregate fault of the other person or persons, whether or not parties to the action, the court shall reduce economic damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306 or 6306a, as applicable, and noneconomic damages shall not be awarded.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Johnnie F Shinholster v. Annapolis Hosp (Michigan Supreme Court 2004)“…ercentage “the total fault of 3 See, also, MCL 600.2959, which provides: In an action…”
- Lamp v. Reynolds (Michigan Court of Appeals 2002, 249 Mich. App. 591)“…rative fault attributed to plaintiff. Defendants argue that MCL 600.2959 mandates such a reduction. We disagree.…”
- Susan Blackwell v. Dean Franchi (Michigan Supreme Court 2018, 914 N.W.2d 900)“…1982 PA 147. It was codified in its present form in 1995 in MCL 600.2959. The Legislature, by requiring that a p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Michigan Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability After Kandil-Elsayed, Michigan Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines
§ 500.3114Persons entitled to personal protection insurance benefits or personal injury benefits; order of priority for claim of motor vehicle occupant or motorcycle operator or passenger; assigned claims plan; 2 or more insurers in same order of priority; partial recoupment; definitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (5), a personal protection insurance policy described in section 3101(1) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident. A personal injury insurance policy described in section 3103(2) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motorcycle accident. If personal protection insurance benefits or personal injury benefits described in section 3103(2) are payable to or for the benefit of an injured person under his or her own policy and would also be payable under the policy of his or her spouse, relative, or relative's spouse, the injured person's insurer shall pay all of the benefits up to the coverage level applicable under section 3107c to the injured person's policy, and is not entitled to recoupment from the other insurer.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 460 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Workman v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange (Michigan Supreme Court 1979, 404 Mich. 477)“…nsurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied." MCL 500.3114(4); MSA 24.13114(4). If § 3114(4)(a)…”
- Tebo v. Havlik (Michigan Supreme Court 1984, 418 Mich. 350)“…her vehicle may or may not be involved in the accident. See MCL 500.3114; MSA 24.13114, concerning priority of c…”
- Mathis v. Interstate Motor Freight System (Michigan Supreme Court 1980, 408 Mich. 164)“…is not limited to workers' compensation as his sole remedy. MCL 500.3114, subds (3) and (4); MSA 24.13114, subds…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 257.658Riding on seat of bicycle, motorcycle, moped, electric skateboard, or electric personal assistive mobility device; number of persons; wearing of crash helmet; conditions; rules; requirements for autocycleIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) A person propelling a bicycle or operating a motorcycle or moped shall not ride other than upon and astride a permanent and regular seat attached to that vehicle. (2) A bicycle or motorcycle shall not be used to carry more persons at 1 time than the number for which it is designed and equipped. (3) An electric personal assistive mobility device or an electric skateboard shall not be used to carry more than 1 person at a time. (4) A person less than 19 years of age operating a moped on a public thoroughfare shall wear a crash helmet on his or her head. A person less than 19 years of age operating an electric skateboard shall wear a crash helmet on his or her head. Except as provided in subsection (5), a person operating or riding on a motorcycle shall wear a crash helmet on his or her head.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Poucher (Michigan Supreme Court 1976, 398 Mich. 316)“…ce is unconstitutional should be reinstated. NOTES [1] MCLA 257.658(d); MSA 9.2358(d). Within two months, t…”
- People of Michigan v. Daryl Gene Robtoy (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…legally required to have a seat for each person riding it. MCL 257.658(2). The taking of a breath sam…”
- Estate of Swick v. Farm Bureau Insurance Company (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016)“…hat PIP benefits should have nevertheless been precluded by MCL 257.658. We disagree. “When a statute’…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan E-Scooter Laws: Sidewalk, Helmet & Age Rules (2026)
§ 600.5805Injuries to persons or property; period of limitations; "adjudication," "criminal sexual conduct," and "dating relationship" definedIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury for all actions to recover damages for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property. (3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging assault, battery, or false imprisonment. (4) Subject to subsection (6), the period of limitations is 5 years for an action charging assault or battery brought by a person who has been assaulted or battered by his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a person with whom he or she resides or formerly resided.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1,140 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts enforce Sec. 600.5805 as written: Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health Services (2005) overruled the continuing violations doctrine as inconsistent with it, while Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc (2004) let time-barred malpractice claims proceed on the equities of that case and others then pending.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rory v. Continental Insurance (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 473 Mich. 457)“…ited to being brought within three years pursuant to former MCL 600.5805(9), now MCL 600.5805(10), which governs…”
- Walters v. Nadell (Michigan Supreme Court 2008, 481 Mich. 377)✓A driver hurt in a 2001 crash could not serve the defendant, a servicemember, before the three-year period expired; the court held he waived the federal tolling provision by never raising it below, reasoning the limitations statute is likewise mandatory yet waivable.
- Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health Services (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 472 Mich. 263)✓A county psychologist won a $250,000 retaliation verdict resting partly on acts older than three years; the court held the statute requires suit within three years of each adverse act, overruled the continuing violations doctrine, and directed judgment for the employer.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026), Medical Malpractice Laws in Michigan (2026): Deadlines & Caps, Michigan Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 500.3107cPersonal protection insurance benefits; coverage limits for allowable expenses; form; rebuttable presumption; application of coverage selection; stacking of insurance policies; applicability to transportation network company vehicle; rider for attendant careIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in sections 3107d and 3109a, and subject to subsection (5), for an insurance policy that provides the security required under section 3101(1) and is issued or renewed after July 1, 2020, the applicant or named insured shall, in a way required under section 3107e and on a form approved by the director, select 1 of the following coverage levels for personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107(1)(a): (a) A limit of $50,000.00 per individual per loss occurrence for any personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107(1)(a). The selection of a limit under this subdivision is only available to an applicant or named insured if both of the following apply: (i) The applicant or named insured is enrolled in Medicaid, as that term is defined in section 3157. (ii) The applicant's or named insured's spouse and any relative of either who resides in the same household has qualified health coverage, as that term is defined in section 3107d, is enrolled in Medicaid, or has coverage for the payment of benefits under section 3107(1)(a) from an insurer that provides the security required by section 3101(1).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Northland Radiology Inc v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…d it included in MCL 500.3107d similar language as found in MCL 500.3107c(3), whereby there is a “rebuttable pres…”
- Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hosp v. Esurance Property & Casualty (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…selection” of the $250,000 coverage limit as required under MCL 500.3107c. The trial court took the motion under…”
- Walter Love v. Lashawn Rudolph (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…overage under this section was excluded. [Emphasis added.] MCL 500.3107c provides in relevant part as follows:…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 500.3103Owner or registrant of motorcycle; security required; offering security for payment of first-party medical benefits; rates, deductibles, and provisionsIn force
(1) An owner or registrant of a motorcycle shall provide security against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for property damage, bodily injury, or death suffered by a person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of that motorcycle. The security shall conform with the requirements of section 3009(1). (2) Each insurer transacting insurance in this state which affords coverage for a motorcycle as described in subsection (1) also shall offer, to an owner or registrant of a motorcycle, security for the payment of first-party medical benefits only, in increments of $5,000.00, payable in the event the owner or registrant is involved in a motorcycle accident. An insurer providing first-party medical benefits may offer, at appropriate premium rates, deductibles, provisions for the coordination of these benefits, and provisions for the subtraction of other benefits provided or required to be provided under the laws of any state or the federal government, subject to the prior approval of the commissioner.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 49 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Corwin v. DaimlerChrysler Insurance (Michigan Court of Appeals 2012, 296 Mich. App. 242)“…accident. A personal injury insurance policy described in [MCL 500.3103(2)] applies to accidental bodily injury…”
- Titan Insurance v. American Country Insurance (Michigan Court of Appeals 2015, 312 Mich. App. 291)“…accident. A personal injury insurance policy described in [MCL 500.3103(2)] applies to accidental bodily injury…”
- Tracy C Brickey v. Vincent Lavon McCarver (Michigan Court of Appeals 2018)“…on 3101, motorcycles are still required to be insured under MCL 500.3103, and public policy dictates that any op…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 257.660Electric personal assistive mobility device, low-speed vehicle, commercial quadricycle; electric skateboard, or moped; operation; limitations; applicability to police officer; regulation by local government; prohibitions; regulation by department of natural resourcesIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) A person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device, low-speed vehicle, electric skateboard, or moped upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, shall exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, and shall not block, delay, or otherwise interfere with the movement of a streetcar on a streetcar track. (2) A motorcycle is entitled to full use of a lane, and a motor vehicle must not be driven in such a manner as to deprive a motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated 2 abreast in a single lane or to the operation of a motorcycle in a manner that blocks, delays, or otherwise interferes with the movement of a streetcar on a streetcar track. (3) A person riding an electric personal assistive mobility device, motorcycle, electric skateboard, or moped upon a roadway shall not ride more than 2 abreast except on a path or part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of those vehicles.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1991
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Stark (Michigan Supreme Court 1991, 437 Mich. 175)“…(prohibiting attachment to other vehicles on the highway); MCL 257.660; MSA 9.2360 (prohibiting moped use on s…”
- Roy v. Department of Transportation (Michigan Supreme Court 1987, 428 Mich. 330)“…e rider shall use that path and shall not use the roadway.” MCL 257.660(3); MSA 9.2360(3). Furthermore, bicycli…”
- Massey v. Scripter (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 385)“…re riding their bicycle against the traffic in violation of MCLA 257.660; MSA 9.2360, which provides in part:…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520b — Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; circumstances; felony; consecutive terms view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520c — Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520d — Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520e — Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanor view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 600.5805, three-year period of limitations for injury to person or property(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2959, comparative fault; reduction of damages and bar on noneconomic damages if plaintiff's fault is greater than the defendants'(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 257.658, motorcycle crash helmet requirement and conditions for riders 21 and older(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 500.3114, order of priority for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for an injured motorcyclist(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 500.3107c, PIP medical coverage levels under Michigan's no-fault reform(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 257.660, lane-use rules for motorcycles (no riding between lanes)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 500.3135 - Tort liability threshold for noneconomic loss (death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement)(legislature.mi.gov).gov