This seems like the complete opposite of legislators doing that.
The part you're quoting is about a previous version of the law, but you left out the money part:
> That interpretation, according to the court’s written decision, was because the state law at the time stated phones had to be used in a way that allowed for “hands-free listening and talking.”
> In 2016, the law was amended, with legislators pointing out that cellphones now acted more as “pocket-sized computers” and the law was too narrow.
So using it for maps doesn't prevent hands-free listening and talking. The law was outdated, if anything because the law was too specific about "listening and talking", not too vague.
It was from 2008. From some googling, it seems there was also a text message-specific update from 2009 or so.
And now the courts are saying "yes, when they updated that law in 2016 in the smartphone era about using a non-mounted phone, they meant 'using' generally, as opposed to the prior laws just about talking and texting."
There's also debate elsewhere about the "mounted vs unmounted" thing and whether or not that's a "loophole." But IMO that's intentional and reasonable because preventing using a mounted phone for navigation but allowing using a built-in-touch-screen would be completely absurd, and "mounting so you can glance and it and hit it with one hand" seems like a reasonable-enough line to draw for now.
I think we are agreeing here. We can guess that the original law's intent was that mobile phones were not to be used for any purpose while driving, with a specific narrow carve-out for "hands-free listening and talking." But, instead of saying that, it was written both too narrowly and too vaguely and had to be expanded and clarified later.
I also agree that the next fight is going to be about mounted vs. unmounted, and the distinction between a driver's phone attached to the vehicle vs. what we are starting to see in cars now, which looks and functions exactly like a tablet rigidly attached to the vehicle, except the tablet itself is made by the car manufacturer. If one is not legal to use by taking your eyes off the road to tap and swipe, then the other one should not be legal either!
Honestly, I wish we could just legislatively get touch screens out of cars in general. The roads would be safer overall.
The part you're quoting is about a previous version of the law, but you left out the money part:
> That interpretation, according to the court’s written decision, was because the state law at the time stated phones had to be used in a way that allowed for “hands-free listening and talking.”
> In 2016, the law was amended, with legislators pointing out that cellphones now acted more as “pocket-sized computers” and the law was too narrow.
So using it for maps doesn't prevent hands-free listening and talking. The law was outdated, if anything because the law was too specific about "listening and talking", not too vague.
It was from 2008. From some googling, it seems there was also a text message-specific update from 2009 or so.
And now the courts are saying "yes, when they updated that law in 2016 in the smartphone era about using a non-mounted phone, they meant 'using' generally, as opposed to the prior laws just about talking and texting."
There's also debate elsewhere about the "mounted vs unmounted" thing and whether or not that's a "loophole." But IMO that's intentional and reasonable because preventing using a mounted phone for navigation but allowing using a built-in-touch-screen would be completely absurd, and "mounting so you can glance and it and hit it with one hand" seems like a reasonable-enough line to draw for now.