“Judge Hamlin reasoned that the law’s intent was to prevent all manual operation of the cellphone to curb distracted driving.  Hamlin felt this even though Sprigg argued that when the original law specified voice calls, it was felt necessary to append the law to add texting to its purview. Using that example, if the law didn’t specify the other operations it covered, then it shouldn’t apply to those other operations. Hamlin’s decision countered that there was no legislative history that demonstrated the bill’s original supporters didn’t want texting covered by the law originally.”

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/08/why-using-google-maps-for-driving-directions-is-illegal-in-calif/

Did you like this?
Tip Freedomwat.ch Staff with Bitcoin

Donate via Installed Wallet Copy