And where do you think money for the 'general fund' comes from?
Bottom line is if you want better infrastructure, if you want to be treated equally, then all bikes need to have license plates and yearly taxes just like a motorcycle.
In my area drivers are absolutely fed up with this entitlement mentality that bicyclists have. Every time someone pushes ANY bill to tag/tax bicyclists they're at the capital in leotards picketing. It's so bizarre to me, that they want equal treatment in every way..... except helping pay for what they want.
Their common excuse is that drivers should pay for bike lanes to get the bicyclists off the road. Ridiculous.
In the UK, many car drivers think that they pay taxes for roads, and therefore they have the right to do whatever while cyclists don't pay those taxes, and therefore don't have the rights.
The actual fact is that their taxes are on their car. You can buy a Ferrari and drive 5 miles a year and pay more tax than someone who buys a super efficient hybrid and drives 100,000 miles a year, and the tax money goes to a general fund.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438
Maybe you could argue it's semantics, but when the tax is not impacted remotely by how much you drive and is not required to be used for roads, is it a road tax?
A cyclist in the UK pays tax when he buys his bike which goes into the same pool of tax money.
Given that bikes are less damaging to the road, it requires less upkeep from their use, so they should pay less tax.
They also take up less space and if it was 100% bikes, there would be fewer traffic issues.
Maybe bikes should pay tax, but the amount of tax they would pay with respect to what they lead to in terms of road expenses would be negligible and the tax would be pittance.