Quote Originally Posted by OakLeaf View Post
I do have to address those - even though it sounds like the guy really shouldn't get his exemption -

Many (maybe most) bikes are still chain-driven. Salt can damage a chain pretty quickly - it's not like a steel frame (which would affect older bikes and cars, but is protected by paint, so it wouldn't get damaged unless the vehicle doesn't get washed often) or steel bodywork on a car (which is just cosmetic). Motorcycle chains aren't cheap, and a broken chain can be life-threatening.

As far as buildup of snow and ice, it's not like a car where you can just drive over it, or rock the wheels back and forth to dislodge it. Maybe it's hard to explain to someone who's never ridden a bike - but trying to ride or push a bike over a steep, slippery hump, even one only a few inches high, is a recipe for dropping it, especially from a stop, and especially when footing and tire traction on either side of the hump is probably dicey, too. Dropping a bike carries a high risk of personal injury as well as damage to nearby vehicles, not just his own.
These are exactly the thoughts I had when I read this. Cars don't have their mechanical parts on the outside. Motorcycles do. And motorcycles have only two wheels, but they are weigh several hundred pounds, so there are situations (like being frozen to the ground) that are extremely tricky.

The most important consideration to me is that a mechanical malfunction on a motorcycle can be much more life-threatening than one on a car. You don't have all that protective material around you, and your bike isn't going to be upright when it's all said and done unless you are a very skilled and/or lucky rider. So I would say, any level of concern about even a slight risk to the motorcycle is simply smart.

That all being said, I don't want to express an opinion on whether or not his request is reasonable for the community -- I'm just expressing some of the concerns I would have as a rider.