I would say those two things are very different. The ground (floors are inside) is the cooperating object upon which leading objects carry.

The shoes carried the person on the ground, the car carried the person on the ground, the horse carried the person on the ground, etc;

An interesting dilemma does occur if we are walking barefoot: our feet carry us but are part of our whole, so we cannot reasonably consider them or ourselves a vehicle. But in a general day-to-day sense we would say they carry us.

It is very interesting what you brought up because I think it shows some people consider their outfit as an extension of themselves. Then again, many people also do for their car :)

Since we're already taking it too far, I want to point out that you can have outside floors, and you can have floors that are not supported by the ground.

An airplanes floor in flight, or a dance floor in your backyard are examples of both.

Rollerblades, skis, snowboards, skateboards, scooters, bikes.

IMO the definition of a vehicle comes down to how wieldy, how large, and how powerful the device is - for instance car is obviously a vehicle as it's very powerful, has a large turning radius, and large area. The interesting thing about this is that there's an argument that scooters are not vehicles but skateboards are - scooters are far easier to control (i.e. more wieldy) whereas skateboards have a tendency to launch the user in one direction and the skateboard in the other, which makes it rather unwieldy.

I would only consider skates to be slightly ambiguous because they are shoes that are mounted but worn. but still, i say vehicle

Other definitions include an agent of transmission (e.g. for and infection) and a medium though which something is displayed (dance is the vehicle for my creativity). Would have been interesting to see the different definitions exploited vs more strained classification of shoes or skates or whatnot as vehicles.