[Porsche-O-Phile]

m21, I do sort of agree with you. It's really hard to say "driving is a privilege not a right" in this day and age - especially in a city like this where there's no meaningful mass-transit, stuff is poorly planned (except at a vehicular scale - zoning and planning department approvals assume vehicular transportation in most cases - pedestrian or mass-transit is usually not even considered), etc. Yes, you CAN technically live without a car now, but it would put one at a HUGE disadvantage and you'd have to put a lot of effort into FORCING your situation to work. FWIW, if it's so "unnecessary" (as "privilege" implies) then why do most states make exceptions for "provisional" driving by convicted DUI offenders to get to/from work, school, etc? Hmmmmm. . . maybe because it's NECESSARY?!?!? "Necessity" implies something that should be provided as a "right" rather than a privilege, doesn't it?

The problem with changing it to say "driving is a right" is you'd get a bunch of idiots that would abuse/misinterpret it. It'd be grounds to get rid of licenses, insurance requirements, etc. (after all, if it's a "right", how can it be restricted?)

The real reason I'm sure is money anyway. By saying it's a "right", states and local municipalities would lose way too much money restricting it and getting people to pay for it. After all, it's much easier justifying making someone pay for a "privilege" than demanding they pay for a "right". I suspect that's the real reason.