Originally Posted by John Forester

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.