Did Arnold Schwarzenegger have a CA motorcycle permit (no test needed)?

 

Anyone know if Schwarzenegger had a CA permit (no test requred)?

I searched these news articles but didn't find mention of the permit:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_3394817
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/13607718.htm
http://thaspot.thuglifearmy.com/blogs/roberts_blog/archive/2006/01/11/397.aspx
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/10/schwarzeneggar.license.ap/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id 95840
http://www.kcra.com/news/6008844/detail.html
http://www.picayuneitem.com/articles/2006/01/11/news/09terminator.txt

It's interesting when the ridiculous CA DMV motorcycle lollipop test
is so dificult that even the head of the police doesn't bother to
attempt the acknowledged keyhole circus act (he'd be a fool if he did
as the only ones who pass the keyhole on a Harley are those who judge
themselves).

It's even more revealing when the head of the police finds the 4-day
(two evenings, and all weekend) CHP babysitting MSF class so useless
for an experienced rider that it isn't worth his time to just pay the
200 dollar bribe to sit thru the mundane inanity of the class.

Since one can legally ride forever in California (with only 3
restrictions) without ever passing any riding test (just keep paying
the annual permit fees & submit to an eye exam & picture every year),
does anyone know if Arnold even bothered to obtain the California
motorcycle permit?

 

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:21:38 GMT, David M. Vittorio


no, he did not.  According to reports, he "just forgot".  However, he
could not be cited for not having a motorcycle license becuase under
California law, you are not required to have a motorcycle endorsement
on  your drivers license if you have a sidecar attached. Which, in
this instance, he did.

Personally, I think that's about the dumbest law I've ever heard.
Attaching a sidecar to a bike doesn't change the skill level to
operate a motorcycle.   In fact it's usually *harder* to operate a
mororcycle with a sidecar.

 

kegler@bowling.net wrote:

DMV code (and most laws in general) and logic are usually mutually
exclusive.

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

 

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:29:14 GMT, "kegler@bowling.net" <nospammers dot
nospam dot net> wrote:


Also a learner's permit is only good for a year.  Arnold's been riding
longer than that.


It's a quirk in the law.  The legal definition of a 'motorcycle' is a
2-wheeled vehicle.  A 3-wheeled vehicle could be a bike with a sidecar
or a 'trike' or even a 3-wheeled car like the Corbin Sparrow.  

A 3-wheeled vehicle is stable on the ground, it doesn't require
balance to operate like a bicycle or motorcycle, so the CA vehicle
code lumps it in with cars rather than create a whole separate
category.  Actually it -is- a special category in a way.  If it's
under 1500 lbs, it is a car in some respects and a motorcycle in
others.

I wouldn't say a sidecar is harder to drive than a bike. It's a
different skill, though.

 


| It's a quirk in the law.  The legal definition of a
'motorcycle' is a
| 2-wheeled vehicle.  A 3-wheeled vehicle could be a bike
with a sidecar
| or a 'trike' or even a 3-wheeled car like the Corbin
Sparrow.
|
| A 3-wheeled vehicle is stable on the ground, it doesn't
require
| balance to operate like a bicycle or motorcycle, so the CA
vehicle
| code lumps it in with cars rather than create a whole
separate
| category.  Actually it -is- a special category in a way.
If it's
| under 1500 lbs, it is a car in some respects and a
motorcycle in
| others.
|
| I wouldn't say a sidecar is harder to drive than a bike.
It's a
| different skill, though.
|
        To some extent I would agree with that.  My
experience with sidecar is very limited, but it certainly is
different to ride.   --  steve