California drivers must obey the state’s prohibition on using handheld cell phones even while their cars are stopped at traffic signals or in traffic, according to a First District Court of Appeal’s decision handed down last week.

The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that California’s legislature had intended its 2007 cell phone use law to include in its definition of “driving” times when drivers on public roads are “momentarily paused” in order to “comply with the rules of the road.” Essentially, the court held that drivers can’t take advantage of “fleeting pauses” in traffic flow caused by signals, congestion or other obstacles to skirt the law, reports HandsfreeInfo.

This reeeaaally doesn’t seem like it should be a headscratcher. If the state enacts a law prohibiting drivers from engaging in a certain behavior while out on the roads, why would it make an exception for traffic lights? Such loopholes undermine the chief purpose of laws targeting specific reckless, dangerous driving behavior – for example, only wearing your seatbelt when *your* car is moving would leave you totally exposed when somebody else rear-ends you.

And yet, this is not the first time a state has left such a big ol’ loophole in its cell phone use legislation. Back in March, Maryland had to amend its texting ban to specifically include time when stopped at traffic lights.Given the unique, cognitive distraction cell phone use creates, states which implement texting or handheld bans must make clear that if you’re on the road and the car is on, *you’re driving* – whether your vehicle is in motion or not.

So how did Carl Nelson, who brought the appeal after a county court fined him $103 for using a handheld phone while stopped at a red light, argue that California’s cell phone law could exclude a ‘fleeting pause’ like a traffic signal? By using the Mercer definition of “driving” – referencing a California Supreme Court case, Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles, in which the court found that “the term ‘drive’…requires proof of ‘volitional movement’.”

By the Mercer definition, Nelson has a viable legal argument for undermining the common sense acknowledgement that ‘stopping for a red light’ does not equal ‘safely parked’. So why didn’t he win his case, then? For two reasons:

1 – Allowing that kind of leeway would totally eradicate any purpose to the law. SFAppeal reports Justice James Lambden explained, “Were we to adopt defendant’s interpretation (of the law), we would open the door to millions of people across our state repeatedly picking up their phones and devices to place calls and check voicemail (or text-based messages) whenever they are paused momentarily in traffic, their car in gear and held still only by their foot on the brake.”

2 – The Mercer case was a DUI in which an individual was found asleep at the wheel – of a car legally parked at the side of a residential street (granted, with its engine and lights on). Being legally parked =/= being on a public road, in the flow of traffic, yet “momentarily paused”.

This case highlights some important ideas. One, a lot of people really, really want to use their phones while driving, in defiance of safety and state law where applicable. Two, it’s absolutely certain that Nelson is not the only person who thinks a ‘fleeting pause’ is time for whipping out their phones and “checking [their] email”. Finally, it’s because of that flawed thinking – that driving is compatible with texting, emailing or browsing – that distracted driving remains such a serious challenge.