Really, it comes down to what the definition of a phone is, and that will likely be written in the law. If someone wants to link to the actual text, our speculation might mean something, otherwise this is really just ranting.

IANAL (and certainly not an Australlian one!), but I also think there might be a case made for turning off the cell radio and then arguing in court that it was not a phone - that functionality was specifically disabled during the time in question. If you have a friendly magistrate, you hopefully get off scott free. If not, you can keep arguing your case and maybe you make some good law!

I never have either. LOL I seriously couldnt keep a straight face on that one.

Soon you're in Amsterdam...

Someone should open a White Castle in Amsterdam. lol

Actually I'd like to try some of that Rakia...

I believe its currently only looking at being done by the state government of Victoria, I haven't heard of it being talked about with any other state or territory's here.

You can doubt it all you like, but it doesn't matter what was intended unless there is an ambiguity in the law, and there isn't an ambiguity just because you don't agree with the effect

That really depends on what "taking advantage of" means doesn't it? While you do have to apply words as they are in the statute, taking a similar approach to other words used to help explain the statute is not a good idea. The real question is, leaving the law aside, would a person who saw somebody doing whatever they are doing with the device (including listening to it, looking at it, or following their directions) say that person was using the device?

If you are actively observing or listening to its output, you are fairly clearly using it by any ordinary use of the word. Having it sitting idle, not touching it, not observing its display, not listening to output from it, an ordinary person is not going to say it's being used.

The problem you seem to have here is you're trying to redefine "use" to get the outcome you want. At first by narrowing it down, then when you're told you can't do that, by stretching it. You can't do that. "use" is an ordinary word (although some things have been specifically *added in* in the statute, it still covers all things within its ordinary meaning) and is read in its ordinary way. You can't seriously be suggesting you wouldn't think you were "using" a standalone personal navigator if it was dishing out directions that you were following.

Incidentally, one of the specific inclusions in the word "use" in the new rule is "looking at anything that is in the phone."

It it not, although there is a specific exclusion for "a CB radio or any other two-way radio" which (to the extent that it can apply) is superfluous.

IAAL, and an Australian one. I would not advise doing that. My advice to a client would be "Don't use your phone as a navigator while driving."

It's an agreed amendment to the Australian Road Rules - Victoria's just (apparently) the first to implement it.

@trollo - could you please paste the text/a link to the text of the amendment?

That is East European and generally not sold here alternative is grappa. Or ask Attila to bring a bottle you'll be hooked in no time don't forget to shop tax free!!

I find your lack of faith disturbing *force choke*