Maybe you'll understand it this way...

Here is the "header" of the bicycle statute, concerning the "BS" as you call it..

That statute is an exemption of the statute you show of a bicycle not being a "vehicle".. It's the "exemption to the rule", do you not get that?

It's NOT BS...

AND

It's NOT ME....

IT'S THE LAW...

You seem to think the law is "cut and dry".. It's not..

Everything I stated is correct.. You can't take one definition and use it in EVERY situation and EVERY OTHER statute.... Especially if there is an exemption somewhere else-(hint)

The law does not allow it... Again... The LAW does not allow it.

Even your Illinois comment adds to what I'm saying.. They are talking about vehicles and roadways...
They are NOT talking about vehicles and the SHOULDER, in the Illinois reference (which again is NOT the "roadway").. They reference that because when on the roadway a bicycle is considered a vehicle, when on the shoulder it's not, BECAUSE it's EXCLUDED originally, in general terms.. And STAYS that way UNTIL it's INCLUDED (and that's ONLY WHEN IT'S ON THE ROADWAY)...

ALL OF THAT STUFF IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE AND ONLY RELEVANT TO BICYCLES BEING VEHICLES... I'm just explaining the "mis-interpretation" of a bicycle not being considered a vehicle..

ACTUALLY... HERE'S the point of the ENTIRE CASE..
Because the bicycle was on the shoulder and not on the roadway, (and since the shoulder is not made to be ridden on at any time (remember again they said for "emergency use" only)) she shouldn't have been riding there in the first place as it's not for riding on...

The husband couldn't sue the county, because the county is not responsible (legally) in a wrongful death case when an accident occurs when someone's riding on the shoulder (remember again, not allowed to RIDE on the shoulder) and hits a pothole (or whatever) and a death occurs.

IF she was on the roadway and the same thing occurred, guess what would happen? That's right! The husband would have won his case.

Do you see it yet?!?

If not, you either...
1.) Are so incredibly obtuse, you just don't understand.

OR

2.) Realized I am correct and just don't want to admit that you mis-read the case.

Can someone else out there, help me and explain to the OP, what I'm TRYING to explain to him?

My reading of the whole "vehicle" thing, brings up an interesting thought I just had...
Since riding on the shoulder would not allow a bicycle the definition of a "vehicle" to be applied to it, can someone use that fact as a defense against "driving drunk" on a "vehicle"(bicycle)?