Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The VC Glossary

Standard definitions commonly accepted in tranportation engineering.

Let's make sure the definitions are those backed by an authority. I suggest the moderators remove any posts of definitions not commonly accepted in the field. As an example, 'Inferiority complex' type definitions should be removed.

these are from the the Federal Highway Administration:

Five basic types of facilities are used to accommodate bicyclists:

• Shared lane: shared motor vehicle/bicycle use of a "standard"-width travel lane.

• Wide outside lane: an outside travel lane with a width of at least 14 ft (4.2 m).

• Bike lane: a portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and/or pavement markings for
preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.

• Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe designed to serve bicyclists.

• Separate bike path: a facility physically separated from the roadway and intended for bicycle use.

from the Uniform traffic code:

11-1202.Traffic laws apply to persons on bicycles and other human powered vehicles

Every person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under chapters 10 and 11, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application.

and

11-1205. Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

from the 2003 MUTCD:

Bicycle Facilities—a general term denoting improvements and provisions that accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking and storage facilities, and shared roadways not specifically defined for bicycle use.
Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.
Bikeway—a generic term for any road, street, path, or way that in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.
Designated Bicycle Route—a system of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having authority with appropriate directional and informational route signs, with or without specific bicycle route numbers. Bicycle routes, which might be a combination of various types of bikeways, should establish a continuous routing.
Shared-Use Path—a bikeway outside the traveled way and physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent alignment. Shared-use paths are also used by pedestrians (including, skaters, users of manual and motorized wheelchairs, and joggers) and other authorized motorized and nonmotorized users.

Vehicular Cycling: Operating a human-powered vehicle on the roadway in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road.

Let's make sure the definitions are those backed by an authority.
• Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe designed to serve bicyclists.


Where do you get that definition? This is what I see and have understood as the definition of 'paved shoulder' from FHA (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t504029.htm):

Shoulder - the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for accommodation of stopped vehicles for emergency use, and for lateral support of the base and surface courses.

Where do you get that definition? This is what I see and have understood as the definition of 'paved shoulder' from FHA (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t504029.htm):

Shoulder - the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for accommodation of stopped vehicles for emergency use, and for lateral support of the base and surface courses.

Agree with noisebeam. The shoulder is not part of the active roadway and is not intended to be occupied by moving vehicles of any kind.

not intended to be occupied by moving vehicles of any kind?

are you sure about that? :D

Not intended is not the same as not permitted.

what?

the FHA explicitly calls it part of the roadway. AASHTO guidelines for the development of bicycle facilities consider shoulders part of the roadway.

There are laws permitting and in some localities requiring the use of shoulders if passable when driving a bicycle. But shoulders are not (perhaps with some local exceptions) designed, built or maintained (intended) for the traveling use of bicycles or other vehicles.

For example in TX: http://bicycleaustin.info/laws/tx-bike.html#shoulder

In AZ: ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder."

Let's make sure the definitions are those backed by an authority. I suggest the moderators remove any posts of definitions not commonly accepted in the field. As an example, 'Inferiority complex' type definitions should be removed.

these are from the the Federal Highway Administration:

Five basic types of facilities are used to accommodate bicyclists:

• Shared lane: shared motor vehicle/bicycle use of a "standard"-width travel lane.

• Wide outside lane: an outside travel lane with a width of at least 14 ft (4.2 m).

• Bike lane: a portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and/or pavement markings for
preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.

• Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe designed to serve bicyclists.

• Separate bike path: a facility physically separated from the roadway and intended for bicycle use.

I see that Bekologist is so intent on his ideology of building bikeways to popularize bicycle transportation and thereby reduce motoring that he adds in new kinds of bikeways not in accordance with law, while he ignores the major facility provided for bicycle traffic.

Here's the California Vehicle Code definition:
Roadway:
That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. ... (bit for divided highways).

In states where bicycles are vehicles, no question. In other states, cyclists have the legal status of drivers of vehicles, which then includes them.

Note that shoulders are not part of the roadway. Neither are they special bicycle facilities, because of their primary engineering use to stabilize the roadway. However, the surface transportation bill of about ten years back stated, and I presume that this has not changed, that it is permissible to spend bicycle transportation funds on "lanes, paths, or shoulders intended for the use of bicyclists." In other words, while shoulders are not bikeways, bicycle funds may be used to improve or to provide shoulders if the intent is to accommodate cyclists. However, since it is impossible to distinguish the source of funds that were used to improve or to provide any particular shoulder, shoulders are not bikeways.

Standard definitions commonly accepted in tranportation engineering.

There are two very different types of bike path. The one that closely parallels a roadway I named a side path once that type became important in bicycle transportation engineering. The Europeans typically call these cycle tracks.

The type of bike path that is not a side path has not been given an effective name. Some people call these trails, but that is a misleading name. I have described these as being well-away from roads with few intersections with roads, but that is a mouthful.

Standard definitions commonly accepted in tranportation engineering.

The name and definition of vehicular cycling have already been advanced.

However, we need a name for the typical American cycling pattern. I have described this as cyclist-inferiority cycling, much to Bekologist's irritation. I have also used the name incompetent, which also irritates many people. I have just suggested the name negligent, to see how that affects people. But this mix of methods is so prevalent that it has to have a generally accepted name. It is mostly unlawful, but that name conveys a multitude of sins, including the cycling that Hurst recommends.

Standard definitions commonly accepted in tranportation engineering.

I think that the scope suggested above is unduly wide. We do not commonly argue about standard items found in most of transportation engineering (which field, really, includes railroading, shipping, and aircraft operation). We argue about the terms peculiar to bicycle transportation engineering, some of which have existing standard meanings in highway engineering (such as bike lane), while others have not yet had such standard meanings applied (such as side path).

your depictions of cyclist behaviors are in no way standard accepted definitions by any stretch of the imagination, john forester.

and back to SHOULDER:


Shoulder - the portion of the roadway

shoulder= part of roadway. thanks for the clarification high roller.

I see that Bekologist is so intent on his ideology of building bikeways to popularize bicycle transportation and thereby reduce motoring that he adds in new kinds of bikeways not in accordance with law, while he ignores the major facility provided for bicycle traffic.

Here's the California Vehicle Code definition:
Roadway:
That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. ... (bit for divided highways).

In states where bicycles are vehicles, no question. In other states, cyclists have the legal status of drivers of vehicles, which then includes them.

Note that shoulders are not part of the roadway. Neither are they special bicycle facilities, because of their primary engineering use to stabilize the roadway. However, the surface transportation bill of about ten years back stated, and I presume that this has not changed, that it is permissible to spend bicycle transportation funds on "lanes, paths, or shoulders intended for the use of bicyclists." In other words, while shoulders are not bikeways, bicycle funds may be used to improve or to provide shoulders if the intent is to accommodate cyclists. However, since it is impossible to distinguish the source of funds that were used to improve or to provide any particular shoulder, shoulders are not bikeways.

A shoulder may not be a bikeway, but a bikeway may be a shoulder. Oregon does this quite nicely with Hiway 101 through the entire length of the state. It is approximately 8 feet wide and designated as a bikeway for the entire length.

The name and definition of vehicular cycling have already been advanced.

However, we need a name for the typical American cycling pattern. I have described this as cyclist-inferiority cycling, much to Bekologist's irritation. I have also used the name incompetent, which also irritates many people. I have just suggested the name negligent, to see how that affects people. But this mix of methods is so prevalent that it has to have a generally accepted name. It is mostly unlawful, but that name conveys a multitude of sins, including the cycling that Hurst recommends.

Some here have suggested the term adaptive cycling.

positive as most consider being adaptive a positive trait. but adaptive in an expected behavior based environment can be confusing and unpredictable to others.

of course vehicular cycling is also adaptive to the ever changing traffic and roadway conditions, but generally within the constraints of following the rules of road for vehicle drivers.

perhaps unconstrained adaptive cycling, or

your depictions of cyclist behaviors are in no way standard accepted definitions by any stretch of the imagination, john forester.

and back to SHOULDER:


Originally Posted by federal highway administration
Shoulder - the portion of the roadway



Bekologist merely cites FHWA for the source of his definition. I suggest that that presents a very wide scope of possible source material.

The following is quoted from the FHWA University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety:

Pavement Design

Many existing gravel shoulders have sufficient width and base to support shoulder bikeways. Minor excavation and the addition of 75 to 100 millimeters (mm) (3 to 4 in) of asphalt pavement is often enough to provide shoulder bikeways. It is best to widen shoulders in conjunction with pavement overlays for several reasons:

* The top lift of asphalt adds structural strength.
* The final lift provides a smooth, seamless joint.
* The cost is less, as greater quantities of materials will be purchased.
* Traffic is disrupted only once for both operations.

When shoulders are provided as part of new road construction, the pavement structural design should be the same as that of the roadway.

On shoulder widening projects, there may be some opportunities to reduce costs by building to a lesser thickness. A total of 50–100 mm (2–4 in) of asphalt and 50–75 mm (2–3 in) of aggregate over existing roadway shoulders may be adequate if the following conditions are met:

* There are no planned widening projects for the road section in the foreseeable future.
* The existing shoulder area and roadbed are stable and there is adequate drainage, or adequate drainage can be provided without major excavation and grading work.
* The existing travel lanes have adequate width and are in stable condition.
* The horizontal curvature is not excessive, so the wheels of large vehicles do not track onto the shoulder area (on roads that have generally good horizontal alignment, it may be feasible to build only the insides of curves to full depth).
* The existing and projected vehicle and heavy truck traffic is not considered excessive (e.g., heavy truck traffic less than 10 percent of total traffic).

The thickness of pavement and base material will depend upon local conditions, and engineering judgment should be used. If there are short sections where the travel lanes must be reconstructed or widened, these areas should be constructed to normal full-depth standards.

All of this wording clearly distinguishes the roadway surface from the shoulder surface.

john, you refer to the FHWA, same organization that i quote defining the shoulder as part of the roadway!

:roflmao:

john, you refer to the FHWA, same organization that i quote defining the shoulder as part of the roadway!


Why not use the full definition per the link I provided from the FHWA?

the one that says "shoulder- the portion of the roadway "?

:rolleyes:

so, some vehicular cyclists cannot admit the shoulder is part of the roadway but it can be improved for vehicular cycling. i see.

Is that what it says in full?

here is another definition for ya:

"Bicycle" means a device

• Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe designed to serve bicyclists

incorrect - the shoulder is not part of the roadway, is not always paved and is not 'designed to serve bicyclists'.

Bek, I only disagree with this definition you made up and for which there is no source provided:

"• Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe designed to serve bicyclists. "

You could have said:
• Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe"

not even that. A shoulder is simply the public right-of-way outside the paved portion of the roadway. It could be paved or not, may or may not have a stripe to designate it.

not even that. A shoulder is simply the public right-of-way outside the paved portion of the roadway. It could be paved or not, may or may not have a stripe to designate it.

agreed, but i am at least letting bek use the definition (even if it incorrectly uses the term roadway) found on the FHWA web site. (i also deleted my comment but you quoted it in parallel)

what?

the FHA explicitly calls it part of the roadway. AASHTO guidelines for the development of bicycle facilities consider shoulders part of the roadway.

The law in many states says otherwise. Thanks for pointing out why neither the FHA nor AASHTO are necessarily friends of cyclists. They just want to keep us out of the way and continue the dominance of motor vehicles on the roadway. Why you continue to advocate for these motor vehicle lackeys is puzzling, Bek.

not intended to be occupied by moving vehicles of any kind?

are you sure about that? :D

yes

agreed, but i am at least letting bek use the definition (even if it incorrectly uses the term roadway) found on the FHWA web site. (i also deleted my comment but you quoted it in parallel)

I am not willing to compromise to that extent because considering the shoulder a part of the roadway leads to cyclists being required to ride there under FRAP laws.

as far as roadways and the design of roadways for bicyclists, the FHWA most assuredly considers a paved shoulder improved for bike travel part of the roadway.

Chip, what do you prefer along high speed, moderate volume rural roads. A wide, ample and smooth shoulder or the crumbling fogline? which design do you suspect enhances safety for all road users without affecting level of service for motorists or bicyclists?

i don't know if this thread should become a debate, but the FHWA certainly considers a shoulder part of the road when considering possible configurations of roadway design to accommodate bicycle traffic.

the source of the quote is part of the larger bike book, but here it is from definitions in the FHWA planning document:

"who is the design bicyclist?"


This section provides recommendations for selecting roadway design treatments to accommodate
bicycles. Specific dimensions are suggested for the width of the recommended facility type. These
recommendations reflect the current state of the practice in the design of bicycle-friendly roadways. Users
of this manual are encouraged to treat these recommendations as "guidelines" rather than absolute
standards.
TYPES OF FACILITIES
Five basic types of facilities are used to accommodate bicyclists:
• Shared lane: shared motor vehicle/bicycle use of a "standard"-width travel lane.
• Wide outside lane: an outside travel lane with a width of at least 14 ft (4.2 m).
• Bike lane: a portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and/or pavement markings for
preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.
• Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe designed to serve bicyclists.
• Separate bike path: a facility physically separated from the roadway and intended for bicycle use.
Each of these facilities is discussed in detail in the appendix.

now, I understand (as of course, the federal highway administration does too) that a gravel shoulder is not intended for bicycle travel, but an improved shoulder, as part of a roadway planned for and improved for bicycle travel, is considered part of the roadway by the Federal highway administration.

john, you refer to the FHWA, same organization that i quote defining the shoulder as part of the roadway!

:roflmao:

Roll your eyes, Bek, indeed. I have read all the letters in this thread, and I do not find any specific source reference to your definition of shoulder. FHWA can mean anything.

I have provided two specific references, one to the specific section of the California Vehicle Code and one from the shoulder section of the FHWA document University Course in Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. Both of those documents contradict the definition that you have presented without a means of substantiating it.

I don't see how our two differing references can be rectified except to suggest that, in the vernacular of roadway design to accommodate bicyclists, that the FHWA sets the definition:

paved shoulders designed to facilitate bike traffic are part of the roadway, as per FHWA design guideline definitions surrounding planning for bikes on public roads and highways.

so what about california? who cares how messed up it is there. california is a state that doesn't recognize the bike as a vehicle either. failing to improve shoulders of some types of roads to facilitate safer car/bike interactions is the failing of your state government, not a universal truth.

so, some states have vehicular statutes that supossedly legally restrict cycling off the shoulders of roads. I suspect complete nonenforcement of those statutes, and practical operational demands of that statue a laughable presumption of the vehicular cycling hardcore crewe.

Your call Allen...shall I start a new thread for the debate on definition of 'shoulder' so as not to derail this one further?

as far as roadways and the design of roadways for bicyclists, the FHWA most assuredly considers a paved shoulder improved for bike travel part of the roadway.

Chip, what do you prefer along high speed, moderate volume rural roads. A wide, ample and smooth shoulder or the crumbling fogline? which design do you suspect enhances safety for all road users without affecting level of service for motorists or bicyclists?

i don't know if this thread should become a debate, but the FHWA certainly considers a shoulder part of the road when considering possible configurations of roadway design to accommodate bicycle traffic.

the source of the quote is part of the larger bike book, but here it is from definitions in the FHWA planning document:

"who is the design bicyclist?"



now, I understand (as of course, the federal highway administration does too) that a gravel shoulder is not intended for bicycle travel, but an improved shoulder, as part of a roadway planned for and improved for bicycle travel, is considered part of the roadway by the Federal highway administration.

Of course I like a nice wide paved shoulder...but you didn't 'paved' nor 'improved', your glossary term was simply 'shoulder', and paved or not, it is still not part of the roadway. Your over-generalizations and faulty definitions are contributing to forcing cyclists to use substandard venues...why do you hate cyclists? Are you with us or against us, pilgrim?

I don't see how our two differing references can be rectified except to suggest that, in the vernacular of roadway design to accommodate bicyclists, that the FHWA sets the definition:

paved shoulders designed to facilitate bike traffic are part of the roadway, as per FHWA design guideline definitions surrounding planning for bikes on public roads and highways.

so what about california? who cares how messed up it is there. california is a state that doesn't recognize the bike as a vehicle either. failing to improve shoulders of some types of roads to facilitate safer car/bike interactions is the failing of your state government, not a universal truth.

so, some states have vehicular statutes that supossedly legally restrict cycling off the shoulders of roads. I suspect complete nonenforcement of those statutes, and practical operational demands of that statue a laughable presumption of the vehicular cycling hardcore crewe.


Then the FHWA is anti-cycling...and you are cheerleading for them. I am very disappointed in you.

I don't see how our two differing references can be rectified except to suggest that, in the vernacular of roadway design to accommodate bicyclists, that the FHWA sets the definition:

paved shoulders designed to facilitate bike traffic are part of the roadway, as per FHWA design guideline definitions surrounding planning for bikes on public roads and highways.

so what about california? who cares how messed up it is there. california is a state that doesn't recognize the bike as a vehicle either. failing to improve shoulders of some types of roads to facilitate safer car/bike interactions is the failing of your state government, not a universal truth.

so, some states have vehicular statutes that supossedly legally restrict cycling off the shoulders of roads. I suspect complete nonenforcement of those statutes, and practical operational demands of that statue a laughable presumption of the vehicular cycling hardcore crewe.

I see, Bek, that you have discovered the formal reissue of Wilkinson's paper on Selecting Roadway Design Treatments, though the URL that shows up appears to have only part of the original paper. So, it appears that shoulders are part of the roadway only when they have been improved or supplied with the intention to have cyclists ride on them, as allowed in the surface transportation funding acts. But shoulders that were not improved or supplied with that intention, are not part of the roadway. That is, of course, the intention written by Wilkinson.

Of course, nobody can tell the source of the funds used to improve or supply any particular bit of shoulder. Do we have fifty yards of shoulder, patched with bicycle funds, designated as bikeway in the middle of miles of other shoulder? Well, of course not.

Another writer stated that the shoulders of some highway in Oregon are posted as bikeways. This may be unique, or typical, for Oregon. I don't know.

I suggest, Bek, that you try to arrange your thoughts in a reasonable pattern.

I am not willing to compromise to that extent because considering the shoulder a part of the roadway leads to cyclists being required to ride there under FRAP laws.

which is why i deleted the post, but not in time. i was compromising w/bek, not w/reality

which is why i deleted the post, but not in time. i was compromising w/bek, not w/reality

:roflmao2: do I even have to explain why I'm laughing? :roflmao2:

We love ya, Bek...which is why we yank your chain. :D

Your call Allen...shall I start a new thread for the debate on definition of 'shoulder' so as not to derail this one further?

Na, I'm just un-pinning this one.

not even that. A shoulder is simply the public right-of-way outside the paved portion of the roadway. It could be paved or not, may or may not have a stripe to designate it.

Really? You have roads with improved shoulders in your area that don't have a stripe (fog line) defining them?

Now a patch of dirt or gravel along a road is indeed a shoulder and such a road may not have a fog line.

But even back roads in Texas have such a stripe... when there is a paved shoulder, otherwise it just looks like a real wide lane... and can be somewhat dangerous to drive at night... especially in fog.

Here is a back country road without a paved shoulder, with a fog line.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.611972,-116.707445&spn=0,359.997511&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=32.611972,-116.707445&panoid=Jl052oCS9c_5BL7-SE2j5A&cbp=12,290.06,,0,20.1

Here is the same road where the shoulder IS paved.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.619698,-116.742372&spn=0,359.997511&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=32.619626,-116.742542&panoid=z1GC_-Vzi4uwWC41_aR5BA&cbp=12,155.12,,0,27.02

Below are some pics of nowhere farm roads in the middle of Texas...
with a fog line. There is also a pic of a road without a shoulder... and no fog line.

Do roads with improved shoulders exist without fog lines? If so, how do you know it is the shoulder?

i'm still going to insist, that in the field of bike transportation literature, that when a shoulder is improved and considered for vehicular bicycling traffic along a public right of way, that shoulder is part of the roadway.

the FHA also states the shoulder is part of the roadway.

I think there should be a "is a paved, improved shoulder for bike travel in rural areas considered part of the roadway?" so the petty semantic bickering can stop.

The name and definition of vehicular cycling have already been advanced.

However, we need a name for the typical American cycling pattern. I have described this as cyclist-inferiority cycling, much to Bekologist's irritation. I have also used the name incompetent, which also irritates many people. I have just suggested the name negligent, to see how that affects people. But this mix of methods is so prevalent that it has to have a generally accepted name. It is mostly unlawful, but that name conveys a multitude of sins, including the cycling that Hurst recommends.

"We" do NOT need a name for cycling (i.e "incompetent" or "cyclist-inferiority" or "negligent) provided by a character who has an agenda/penchant for "irritating" or negatively "affecting" anyone who doesn't buy (literally or figuratively) into his Program.

Where do you get that definition? This is what I see and have understood as the definition of 'paved shoulder' from FHA (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t504029.htm):

Shoulder - the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for accommodation of stopped vehicles for emergency use, and for lateral support of the base and surface courses.

The FHWA use of "roadway" there appears to be non-standard. That is, FHWA uses "roadway" where others use "road", and "travel way" where others use "roadway".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/roadway
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/roadway
http://www.answers.com/topic/roadway
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:wRkFR-YMrI8J:www.digihitch.com/usa428.html+roadway+definition&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Etc, etc.


Here's the California Vehicle Code definition:
Roadway:
That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. ... (bit for divided highways).
In states where bicycles are vehicles, no question. In other states, cyclists have the legal status of drivers of vehicles, which then includes them.
Note that shoulders are not part of the roadway. Neither are they special bicycle facilities, because of their primary engineering use to stabilize the roadway. However, the surface transportation bill of about ten years back stated, and I presume that this has not changed, that it is permissible to spend bicycle transportation funds on "lanes, paths, or shoulders intended for the use of bicyclists." In other words, while shoulders are not bikeways, bicycle funds may be used to improve or to provide shoulders if the intent is to accommodate cyclists. However, since it is impossible to distinguish the source of funds that were used to improve or to provide any particular shoulder, shoulders are not bikeways.

This is basically correct.

The key is that the shoulder isn't "ordinarily used for vehicular traffic". In practice and by custom, bicycles are allowed to use the shoulder for travelling even though technically they can't. In some states, eg, NY, bicycles are explicitly allowed to travel in the shoulder.

Using the link noisebeam provided (thank you, sir) to the FHA Tech Advisory on paved shoulders (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t504029.htm) I read in Background, 4.a.

Over the years, the function of shoulders adjacent to mainline pavements has broadened considerably. Some of the added functions of modern roadway shoulders are: to accommodate an increasing encroachment of traffic; to expedite water runoff from travel lane pavement; to provide added space for construction and maintenance activities; to provide other usage such as bicycle paths or slow-moving vehicles and equipment lanes; to reduce edge stresses and edge and corner deflections; and to reduce the development of pavement edge dropoffs.

This seems to imply that they do not consider the shoulder as an area for our riding but rather a possible location for a bike path. This particular doc does not seem to reflect the reality that most riders will gladly ride a decent shoulder of a high speed road.