Next door in Oregon, the House of Representatives is looking at House Bill 3008, which would require bicycles to be registered. $54 initial cost, and $27/year thereafter.
The revenue collected would theoretically be used for "bicycle related transportation improvement projects." I believe it's worth noting that the four sponsors of the bill are all from rural areas in Oregon. (And perhaps since they don't sit in urban traffic every day, we need to understand that they might see cyclists as "the problem" rather than "the solution.")
More information can be found HERE.
OSU Economics Professor Patrick Emerson has an alternative viewpoint on his blog - HERE. He says, "The appropriate public policy is to subsidize bikes, not tax them." (Emphasis added.)
It's an easy case to make. Taxes should be levied for one of two reasons - either 1) to raise revenue that's needed by the taxing body to support the service, infrastructure, etc., or 2) to discourage an activity or behavior that the taxing body finds undesirable.
Surely bicyles don't take much toll on the infrastructure. And considering the alternatives, is bicycling something we want to discourage the citizens from engaging in?
I think I'll go with the economist instead of the politicians on this one.