My point is that it is a misuse of the word 'privilege.'
A definition of privilege -
Here's another definition.
When you pay your state and federal taxes, some of that money goes into DOT and road rapair, construction, managment, enforcement, etc...
Them highways and city streets ain't yours, it's everyone's. For the good of everyone that uses these roads, laws are developed to make certain everyone who uses these roads are licenced and insured. We can't very well have the public roads be a free for all with no license for motor vehicle users, no enforcement of traffic laws, uninsured motorists, drinking and driving, etc..etc..etc...
The laws are for the good of the many, therefore, you must prove to the state governement that you are worthy of utilizing the roads that everyone else uses.
You get your drivers license, you obay the traffic laws, you earn the legal right (or privilge) to use the roads. Violate these laws enough times, and that privilige is taken away from you as well it should be.
You don't like the law or laws? then form a valid argument that you can convince others to join, send this to your local city government officials and follow up on it.
Don't get too caught up in the definitions. A "right" would be considered constitutional, a privilige is an earned right that has limitations and may be taken away if you violate those limitations.
All that being said, I do not support a helmet law. I think you are a friggen idiot if you don't wear one, but that should be your decision. The only thing mandatory should be eye wear of some sort so you don't get a bug in your eye and run into a mini van full of kids or something.