Re: Using mobile phones (like the N900) for in-car navigation to be illegal in Austra
 

I'm not trying to redefine 'use' at all - it is a very vague term, that's my point.

If you want to get very technical and anal about it, which you apparently do...

"looking at anything that is in the phone."

Read that sentence again and tell me what 'in' means - I highly doubt that this is a direct quote, even though you happily presented it as one.

Re: Using mobile phones (like the N900) for in-car navigation to be illegal in Austra
 

I'm pretty sure the local governments can still ignore rules if they choose, hell the NT had unlimited speed limits on the Stuart Highway for years before being enforced by their local government.

Re: Using mobile phones (like the N900) for in-car navigation to be illegal in Austra
 

This has spread to NZ?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/29...e-illegal-Govt

Bloody iPhones :p

Re: Using mobile phones (like the N900) for in-car navigation to be illegal in Austra
 

At least in NZ they have an amendment to allow phones to be used as Satnav devices, courtesy of a clued up politician (I know, contradiction)

Re: Using mobile phones (like the N900) for in-car navigation to be illegal in Austra
 

heres some questions you could pose to your transport minister...Common sense prevails - looks like the iphone crowd helped in its amendment

Re: Using mobile phones (like the N900) for in-car navigation to be illegal in Austra
 

You may not be aware of it, but you are definitely trying to do that. Any vagueness you see here is a product of your desire to exclude from the term "use" something that people would ordinarily understand to be "using" the device.

What you describe perjoratively as anal is me interpreting the law based on actually being a practicing lawyer in the country where the law was passed. It's not a matter of being anal, it's a matter of having the training to know how statutes are interpreted by the courts and applying that to the words in the statute.

Again, it's an ordinary word. Perhaps it will assist you if you read in the word "stored" in front (for illustration - don't assume the resulting sentence means exactly the same as that in the statute).

I would suggest you go and look at the amendment before you start throwing around accusations that I am being dishonest. Google will find it.