HUD aside, let's compare these.
Are they the same position?
will not work in court because it is clear that 'hand held' is not meant to be taken literally
The moment you claim the law is not meant to be taken literally, you step into the morass of "intent of the law" vs "letter of the law". Once you start interpreting intent, the defendant is able to start questioning the reason behind the law. As in, "is the law meant to prevent distracted driving? Yes? Well, I wasn't distracted. The nature of Apple Watch allows me to keep my eyes on the road and my hands on the wheel much better than if I were using a radio built into the car." Or somesuch. However good his lawyer is at making the argument is how likely he is to get off.
Or you could stick to the letter of the law. In which case he will get off. This appears to be a no-win for the government if the accused and his representation argue properly (and get an unbiased judge.)
Well the back of your hand is still your hand, and your wrist and your hand are not clearly defined. I don't think there's an issue on this one.
Putting lipstick on while driving is not covered by laws that ban the use of electronic devices, but still is illegal. Distracted drivers were a problem before the iPhone was invented.
Indeed; I recently read that the original bans on drinking while driving were aimed at drinking anything while driving, to avoid the distraction in the act and not the effects of the substance being consumed....
Makes a certain amount of sense, when motorized vehicles first came out people were skeptical. IIRC one of those old obsolete funny laws left on the books required a person with a lit lantern to walk in front of a car when it was on the road at nigjht....