Too true Crab. Why dont they spell out intent rather than all the leagalese that actually helps make interpretation too complex for any normal human? How about "The intent of the law on hand held devices is that the driver should be concentrating soley on the road and vehicle operation and not be distracted. Thus the use of any ancillary device requiring division of cognitive space from the primary task of driving is covered here..."
I know. Dream on....
The reasonable person arguement will not win the FAA V Silly Pilot case, for the same reasons as the Jimmy Carr failure. They are not the cases pilots/operators fear. Post accident, when you are being sued for CFIT, any sensible lawyer will invoke intent and reasonable person...and I suggest you'd be smoked. That is the case to fear and plan for.
I'd say that strictly speaking, FAR 135.207 means if you completely cover your instrument panel (unaided because it pre dates NVG) can you still safely fly the aircraft?
That clearly excludes over water at night.
Good luck VG.