I don't know where this assertion started, but it is nonsense. The Founding Fathers supported the idea of federally-maintained roads primarily for delivering the mail, but they recognized that these roads would have value to the country by encouraging commerce. They clearly intended for everyone to be able to use these roads to go about his or her business. They intended that the roads would be available for foot traffic, horseback, or wagons. If you'd suggested to one of them that walking on the post roads was a right but that riding a horse was a privilege, most would have laughed at you. Those who wouldn't have laughed at you would have shot you as an advocate of return to the British system of lords versus commoners.
While the Founding Fathers didn't know that cars would exist, the extension of the principles on which they built this country shows that driving is a right. Furthermore, the first time eminent domain is used to procure land for a road, driving becomes a right. The first time that taxes are used for a road, driving becomes a right. There is simply no principled argument for the assertion that driving is a privilege.
Bill
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Join the list of those who believe their pet cause is a "right" -- a "right" to affordable healthcare, a "right" to do drugs, a "right" to wear blue hair to school, on and on.
No, you don't have a "right" to drive a 3000 pound car at 70 MPH. If you can demonstrate that you can, you'll get a license to drive. No different than airplane pilots, boat captains, doctors, etc.
Unless, of course, they have "rights" also and they don't need a license either. Is that what you're proposing?