Give this person a cigar!  You are correct!  And, among all the various
manners of locomotion possible, the US Supreme Court has specifically
recognized as a Right only the certain types of locomotion "ordinarily"
used on any given stretch of Public Right of Way.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=270#274

And, if other extraordinary manners of locomotion obstruct with the
locomotion ordinarily used on a particular stretch of Public Right of
Way, that extraordinary manner of locomotion may rightfully be
prohibited on that particular stretch of Public Right of Way.

You are, in fact, quite mistaken.  Walking, bicycling, skateboarding
and inline roller-skating are rather extraordinary manners of
locomotion used on our Public Highways, which can be, and indeed often
are, rightfully prohibited because they obstruct with the locomotion
ordinarily used on Public Highways, each upon which we have a Right
ONLY to the locomotion ordinarily used on it.

Nowhere is walking, bicycling, skateboarding or inline roller-skating
specifically recognized as a Right on Public Highways!  I find it quite
peculiar that you would assert that these rather extraordinary manners
of locomotion on Public Highways are a Right when there not
specifically recognized, but would deny the Right of Locomotion
Ordinarily used on Public Highways when it IS specifically recognized.

The US Supreme Court has specifically recognized ONLY the Locomotion
Ordinarily used on any particular stretch of Public Right of Way.
Today, that Ordinary Locomotion on Public Highways is, of course, the
motor vehicle.  But, you deny the use of a motor vehicle on Public
Highways is a Right, because the use of a "motor vehicle" on Public
Highways isn't specifically recognized as a Right, and despite the fact
that the Locomotion Ordinarily used on Public Right of Ways IS
specifically recognized.

Something which is a Right is not subject to restriction nor
prohibition.  Walking on Public Highways can be prohibited because it
obstructs the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being the motor
vehicle.  Motor Vehicles on Public Sidewalks can be prohibited because
they obstruct the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being walking.
But, on both Public Highways and Public Sidewalks, the locomotion
ordinarily used there is a recognized Right and therefore CAN NOT be
prohibited.

We have a Right to use Public Highways, Roads, Sidewalks, Paths, and
other Public Right of Ways.  And, on each, we have the Right to use the
Locomotion Ordinarily used on that particular Public Right of Way.

We have the Right to use Public Highways, and the locomotion ordinarily
used on Public Highways at the time, regardless if that Public Highway
runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not.

We have the Right to use Public Sidewalks, and the locomotion ordinarly
used on Public Sidewalks at the time, regardless if that Public
Sidewalk runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not.

We have the Right to use Public Right of Ways, and the locomotion
ordinarly used on those particular Public Right of Ways at the time,
regardless if that Public Right of Way runs parallel with other Public
Right of Ways or not.

Another reason a particular manner of locomotion may be prohibited is
if it poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of
others.  If, as it would appear, you would claim the motor vehicle
poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of others,
it must be outright prohibited for EVERYONE.  One CAN NOT obtain a
license to Endanger the lives or property of others.  But, clearly, as
the motor vehicle IS the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways,
the level of danger they pose must be acceptable.  Otherwise, if it
weren't, it wouldn't be the locomotion ordinarly used.

[snip...]

Isn't this now the third time you've posted this right-to-drive stuff, which
effectively makes it Usenet spam?

The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself. One can
freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor vehicle
of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)... subject
to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored vehicles in their
respective area.

However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or kill
oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left
as a privilege rather than an unalienable right. As it is now, enough
so-called licensed drivers--where the license is supposed to indicate
proficiency in the knowledge of the laws of driving and competent
behind-the-wheel control of the motor vehicle--make enough driving errors
and intentional violations of various laws of driving that there are
multiple collisions reported on an hourly basis.

Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness?  Clearly, in a knee
jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me.  But, for who's
benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes?  I present you with
evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then
come off with some cutesy limerick!  Are you under the impression you
proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy
limericks?

You have lived in this harness for so long, you are afraid to live
without it, you are afraid to consider living without it, and to avoid
doing that, you are afraid to even admit the harness exists!  And, in
your case, plagiarizing cutesy limericks is a defense mechanism,
protecting you from unwanted thought and observations.

You probably wouldn't dare follow it, but this is a link to a site
where the 1937 Detroit Michigan Driver's Handbook is shown.  At the
time of the publishing of this handbook, "driving" was still openly
admitted by Cities and States as a Right.
http://www.us-highways.com/trtdr00.htm

Let's try another approach at this.  Surely you would have to admit our
Constitution recognizes our Personal Right to Liberty.  And, surely you
would have to admit that this implies a Personal Right to Travel on
Public Highways, Roads, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways.  If you
can't admit even this, then I can only think you humiliate yourself.

Assuming you admit we have the Personal Right to Travel on our Public
Highways, in what manner should we Travel on them other than the
Ordinary (the usual) manner of Travel on them?  Should we be limited to
only extraordinary manners of Travel on them, which in turn may be, and
are in many places, prohibited because they obstruct the ordinary
manner of Travel?

And, how can you have a Right to something extraordinary which can be
prohibited because it obstructs the ordinary?  You can't!  If there
must be a choice between the Ordinary manner of Travel and a certain
extraordinary manner of Travel, the Right must always go with the
Ordinary manner of Travel.

If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths and
other Public Right of Ways, then you have the Right to Travel on Public
Highways, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Roads, and you
have the Right to Travel on Public Paths, and you have the Right to
Travel on other Public Right of Ways.

If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, then, formost, you
have the Right to Travel on them in the manner Ordinarly used on them.
The Ordinary manner yesterday was the Ordinary manner yesterday.  The
Ordinary manner today is the Ordinary manner today.  The Ordinary
manner tomorrow will be the Ordinary manner tomorrow.

We have the Right to the Ordinary manner of Travel used on any
particular stretch of Public Highway, Road, Path or other Public Right
of Way at any particular time.

snip whine

If wishes were fishes, you sure would have a nice
dinner, huh?

The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion:

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=270#274

Examine this carefully.  This is YOUR Right.  You NEED to Understand
EXACTLY WHAT is your Right.

Note: "and the right, ordinarly"

Which Right?  "of locomotion", "to remove from one place to another",
"of personal liberty", "of free transit".  AKA: Personal Travel.

How?  "ordinarly".

Where?  "from or through the territory of any state".  AKA: Public
Property.

We have the Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on
Public Property.

Even expressed in this form, from experience debating this issue, there
will be those who still don't understand what their Right is.

Let me rephrase it.  On any particular stretch of Public Property, you
have a Right to use WHATEVER Locomotion is Ordinarly used on that
stretch.

On Public Sidewalks, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Walking, and we
have a Right to Walk on Public Sidewalks.

On Public Biketrails, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Bikes, and we
have a Right to Bike on Public Biketrails.

What is the Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public
Highways?

It is, of course, the Automobile.

On Public Highways, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is the Auto, and we
have a Right to use Autos on Public Highways.