For me, this is harder to dissect.
I understand the underlying political (translation: revenue/money) aspects of the equation - I can easily read between the lines.
And, of-course, I heartily disagree with such.
The problem I have, though, when examining this particular case, comes about when I examine the true safety concerns that GPS-usage pose.
Given that the vast majority of the population does *NOT* seem to understand that, when driving, interacting with a GPS device is just as dangerous as "Texting" on one's cell-phone, or other such devoted activity (i.e. not only does it take your attention from the roadway, as even the use of a hands-free cellular phone will, the further dangerous of interactive input as well as the accommodation that your eyes must exert in order to shift from roadway scanning to detail-reading of a device very close-in), as well as the inclination of some to somehow put the device in an area where they think it would be "neat/nifty" (i.e. overhead display, or integration into a lower part of the instrument console) makes for a huge driving hazard.
Anyone who drives at-speed certainly can remember the last time that they took their eyes from the main roadway for just a split second - even for a scan of one's instrumentation or rearview mirrors - only to look ahead again and see a developing situation.
Given the allowance of the bill for allowing the driver to interact with the device on a VOCAL/audible level, I think that it is perhaps the right way to approach this particular true-safety concern.
And certainly, it does not restrict a passenger from navigating.