Hey, guess what? Westbrook's got the same ordinance! Pretty much word for word. Since yet another person said the same thing earlier in this thread, I'm guessing many municipalities copied a common source of recommended language at some point in history. I notice the SoPo ones say 1966!

I agree that registration might actually be desirable for theft recovery purposes, but probably a waste of money to enforce it as required. Note that Portland actually re-instituted an optional registration program last summer for just this reason.

Not sure whether a bike lane would be interpreted as an "adjacent path" or not. Most infrastructure people use "path" to refer to something separated, but I'm not sure if the law or any given judge would do the same. I'm thinking the Greenway would not qualify, because it is not adjacent to any one street so much as it cuts through the city in a different way, mostly along the water and rail line.

As I understand it, separated bike paths parallel to the road were tried a few decades ago but found too dangerous in urban areas due to intersections. Perhaps this ordinance is a holdover from those days.