Does anyone know if Arnold Schwarzenegger ever passed the idiotic
California DMV motorcycle license (circus act) test on his Harley?

The news a few years ago was all abuzz with the fact that Arnold (like
many others in California) rode his bike sans a license. In California,
you can ride for years without a bona fide license (renewing the permit).

I googled using the search term:
"arnold schwarzenegger motorcycle license"

But all I found was the classic irresponsible journalism which talks
about the start but never the finish.

By now, we all know that Arnold "promised" to take the California license
test ... and most of us know that the circus act DMV test is designed to
make you not take that test ... but I hope Arnold ... as a rider ... saw
the idiocy of that California test (which is simply a money-making
maneuver by the MSF to funnel millions of dollars into their coffers).

Does anyone know if Arnold has a license yet and if he took the idiotic
California DMV motorcycle test?

On Aug 31, 8:22*pm, jm <jm1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone know if Arnold Schwarzenegger ever passed the idiotic
> California DMV motorcycle license (circus act) test on his Harley?

Who knows? Who cares?

But anyone who can't pass the basic riding test required by the State
of California as an alternative to passing the riding/safety class
shouldn't be aboard a kiddie-car, much less trying to ride a
motorcycle on crowded California streets or freeways.

Expecting a rider to be able to precisely control his motorcycle isn't
expecting a "circus act", and if you think the present test is
difficult I suggest you look into the training and testing that every
motor officer in California, local police *or* CHP, has to undergo
before they're ever allowed to hit the streets.

*Those* skill requirements are demanding. The everyday California DMV
riding test isn't.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:02:24 -0700, Twibil wrote:

> anyone who can't pass the basic riding test required by the State of
> California ... shouldn't be ...trying to ride a motorcycle
> on crowded California streets or freeways.

You're joking, right? Have you ever taken the idiotic California DMV
riding test?

The entire test CA DMV riding test is DESIGNED by the MSF to funnel money
to them instead, with the DMV's complicity. It serves BOTH their
purposes: The DMV doesn't need to provide the free test; they only need
to paint the lines on their pavement. The MSF gets all the money.

Interestingly, have you seen the MSF test? It's absolutely NOTHING like
the test they designed for the DMV. And, perchance, have you noticed the
grading factors between them? The MSF stipulated the DMV test allow zero
mistakes while the MSF test allows multiple mistakes.

While the MSF riding test is still a money-making farce (e.g., they don't
all you to take the test on a real bike, like your own, for example ...
you must use their toy bikes instead) ... at least the MSF test in
California is realistic. The test the MSF designed for the California DMV
is idiotic (which few could ever say is even slightly close to realistic).

It's all about M-O-N-E-Y and has nothing do do with rider skills;
otherwise the MSF would allow you to indemnify them and allow you to ride
your own bike, which is likely 1,000 cc or more.

With your own 1 liter bike, if you were competent, you could easily pass
the MSF test; but you'd never pass the idiotic California DMV test.

BTW, I know that some bloke is going to say "I passed the California DMV
riding test on my Goldwing with my eyes closed and a package of groceries
in my lap"; but talk is cheap. If they don't show proof, (and they
can't), then I wouldn't believe them.

Back to the question (although I already know, in my heart, the answer):

Q: Did Arnold pass the California riding test on his own bike or did he
cop out (as everyone with a large-bore bike must), and pay the bribe to
the MSF to pass the much easier but more realistic MSF test on a tiny toy
bike?

On Sep 1, 9:19*am, jm <jm1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> > anyone who can't pass the basic riding test required by the State of
> > California ... shouldn't be ...trying to ride a motorcycle
> > on crowded California streets or freeways.
>
> You're joking, right? Have you ever taken the idiotic California DMV
> riding test?

(A) It isn't idiotic just because you found it to be too difficult.

(B) Of course I've taken it. Passed it on the first try on a Honda
VFR800; a top-heavy sport bike with a touchy throttle response that's
not exactly well-suited to precise slow-speed manuvering.

> The entire test CA DMV riding test is DESIGNED by the MSF to funnel money
> to them instead, with the DMV's complicity. It serves BOTH their
> purposes: The DMV doesn't need to provide the free test; they only need
> to paint the lines on their pavement. The MSF gets all the money.

Yeah, that's right. It's all a conspiracy to get your money and steal
your freedom. And Bush blew up the World Trade Center, we never
landed on the Moon, and innocent citizens are being abducted and
anally probed by Space Aliens even as we speak.

> With your own 1 liter bike, if you were competent, you could easily pass
> the MSF test; but you'd never pass the idiotic California DMV test.

That's odd: people do it every day, you know.

And if someone of *my* admittedly modest riding skills can ace said
test on the first try, that doesn't make the test look too terribly
difficult.

> BTW, I know that some bloke is going to say "I passed the California DMV
> riding test on my Goldwing with my eyes closed and a package of groceries
> in my lap"; but talk is cheap. If they don't show proof, (and they
> can't), then I wouldn't believe them.

Shrug. It's obvious that you know all the answers to everything
already, and that you'd ignore any evidence to the contrary, so your
beliefs -or lack of same- don't come into it. (Although how you'd
expect any sane person to have "proof" that they'd passed the test is
beyond me. Did you think that everyone took along a film crew to
document their riding tests?)

> Back to the question (although I already know, in my heart, the answer):

See? You know all the answers to everything already.

> Q: Did Arnold pass the California riding test on his own bike or did he
> cop out (as everyone with a large-bore bike must), and pay the bribe to
> the MSF to pass the much easier but more realistic MSF test on a tiny toy
> bike?

Goodness, you certainly do have issues.

Once more, I suggest that you look into the riding skill requirements
for becoming a motor officer, or, just as good, check out the hoops
you'd have tro jump through to just to get a normal everyday
motorcycle lisence in, say, Germany.

The standard California DMV riding test pales in comparison to either
of them, and since riders on all sorts of bikes continue to pass that
CA DMV test every single day, your only point seems to be "If I can't
pass the test then there must be something wrong with the test."

Shrug.

On Sep 1, 8:19*am, jm <jm1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:02:24 -0700, Twibil wrote:
> > anyone who can't pass the basic riding test required by the State of
> > California ... shouldn't be ...trying to ride a motorcycle
> > on crowded California streets or freeways.
>
> You're joking, right? Have you ever taken the idiotic California DMV
> riding test?
>
> The entire test CA DMV riding test is DESIGNED by the MSF to funnel money
> to them instead, with the DMV's complicity. It serves BOTH their
> purposes: The DMV doesn't need to provide the free test; they only need
> to paint the lines on their pavement. The MSF gets all the money.

So I'm just speculating here, but did you perhaps
take and fail the California DMV test ? Or are you
****ed because you felt it was too easy ?

I took it about 1976 or so on a bike that I'd just bought
and ridden over to the DMV. At the time, the test consisted
of the keyhole and cone swerve. I suspect it still does.

Took me two tries that afternoon to pass it.

jm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<snip>

****, but you're stupid.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400Fx2 Triumph Street Triple
Kawasaki GT550x2 Suzuki TS250ERx2 GN250 Damn, up to ten bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

On Sep 1, 11:53*am, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> I took it about 1976 or so on a bike that I'd just bought
> and ridden over to the DMV. At the time, the test consisted
> of the keyhole and cone swerve. I suspect it still does.

There's a circle-riding test now too, or at least there was when I
took it. The circle is circa 30' in diameter, and consists of two
concentric white lines that are about 30" apart. The idea is that you
ride twice around the circle in each direction -at whatever speed you
find most comforable- without letting your tires cross over either the
inner or outer lines. It was mildly challenging, but only mildly.

Not only did I pass on the first try, but the neighbor with whom I
sometimes ride passed on his second attempt; and according to him he'd
not ridden a motorcyle for 20 years when he took the test.

When he failed the first time I advised him to go down to the DMV
parking lot on a Sunday when the DMV is closed and spend 1/2 hour
going around the circle in both directions. He did.

That's all it took.

On Sep 1, 5:15*pm, Poison Pete <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's a circle-riding test now too, or at least there was when I
> took it. *The circle is circa 30' in diameter, and consists of two
> concentric white lines that are about 30" apart. *The idea is that you
> ride twice around the circle in each direction -at whatever speed you
> find most comforable- without letting your tires cross over either the
> inner or outer lines. *It was mildly challenging, but only mildly.

It's smaller than that, it's about 25 feet in diameter, with 24 inches
between the inner and outer circle.

Riding the circles have *nothing* to do with normal motorcycle riding,
even parking lot riding, because looking at the ground disrupts the
normal sense of balance which is dependant upon using the horizon as a
reference.

The rider of a larger motorcycle has to slip the clutch and drag the
rear brake to negotiate the circles, all the while being graded by
some Filipina(1) bureaucrat who never drove a car before she arrived
in California, let alone ride a motorcycle!

A few years ago I could barely ride the circles on a bicycle, let
alone a motorcycle, because my sense of balance was so deteriorated.

(1) Go ahead. Call me a "racist." The term "Filipina" must be a
"slur," right?

On Sep 1, 6:18*pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I think the circle-riding skill is valuable.

Actually, it is. It demonstrates that you can precisely control your
motorcycle at low speeds, and that's a *good* thing. It demonstrates
something else, too. It's a form of intelligence test.

Ya see; *anyone* can find out well in advance *exactly* what the test
includes. They can walk out and look at the course itself any time
they want, they can watch other riders take the test if they wish, and
they're even free to set up their own duplicate course -or use the one
in the DMV parking lot on weekends in most cases- and practise for as
long as they desire before taking the test.

Given these factors, if you fail the test it's because you either
thought you were a whole lot better than you really are or because
you're not bright enough to understand that arguing about whether or
not the test requirements are "realistic" isn't going to get you
anywhere. It's akin to arguing with gravity, and is just as
rewarding. The test is what it is; and people who are even minimally
bright understand that -and take the time to be certain that they can
meet the test requirements well *before* they show up to be tested.

Now: since the State lacks the funds to set up a realistic high-speed
testing course for potential motorcycle riders they use this simple
form of intelligence test instead, thinking, "Someone who doesn't
bother to prepare for the test probably isn't very bright in the first
place, so if they can't pass the riding test we'll require them to
pass a motorcycle safety course instead. That way *our* collective
asses are covered when they laminate themselves to a Peterbilt, and
the survivors aren't going to be able to claim in court that we let
their late-laminated-loved-one out on the highway without knowing the
basics."

Smart people see a problem and immediately start figuring out how to
solve it. Dumb ones just complain about the problem, bitch about how
life is terribly unfair to them, and never bother looking around to
see how others have solved the problem that stopped them cold in their
tracks.

Shrug.

On Sep 1, 6:56*pm, "?" <breoganmacbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's smaller than that, it's about 25 feet in diameter, with 24 inches
> between the inner and outer circle.

So? You don't know what the words "circa" or "about" mean?

> Riding the circles have *nothing* to do with normal motorcycle riding,
> even parking lot riding, because looking at the ground disrupts the
> normal sense of balance which is dependant upon using the horizon as a
> reference.

Idiot, you don't watch the ground right at your front wheel while
you're riding the circle: you look at where you're going to be in a
few seconds; about 20' ahead.

In other words, you ride the circle exactly like you ride everywhere
else. (Duh.)

> The rider of a larger motorcycle has to slip the clutch and drag the
> rear brake to negotiate the circles, all the while being graded by
> some Filipina(1) bureaucrat who never drove a car before she arrived
> in California, let alone ride a motorcycle!

Oh bullshit. No street bike idles so quickly in 1st gear that you'd
have to slip the clutch or use the brakes. Those are just excuses made
by incompetent riders.

(See "intelligence test", in the post below.)

> A few years ago I could barely ride the circles on a bicycle, let
> alone a motorcycle, because my sense of balance was so deteriorated.

Then you shouldn't be riding. But we all know that you don't, because
you know nothing about motorcycles or riding them, so it isn't a
problem.

> (1) Go ahead. Call me a "racist." The term "Filipina" must be a
> "slur," right?

Poor sad little idiot. The word "Filipina" isn't a racist slur so far
as I know, but the way you *used* it -as an insult- *was*.

And you're too stupid to even understand what you did.