(This is an question, not an argument. I don't drive, so I honestly don't understand).
On top of that, the FOV is much more restricted in the headset than the average human's, and there is noticeable distortion introduced at the edges of the displays as documented by several reviews. So you're seeing less than you normally would, and it's warped.
Those things aside, if you're wearing the VR headset, it's likely you're doing something that is pulling your focus away from the act of driving.
1. When the car’s projector stops working, you can still see through your windshield (I realize AVP can keep rolling the cameras in some circumstances, but not all)
2. The info projected on the windshield is inherently limited to a few key indicators vs. an open ended OS that can display almost anything
3. The windshield projector doesn’t eliminate your peripheral vision and hamper your field of view
> No person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing glasses having a temple width of one-half inch or more if any part of such temple extends below the horizontal center of the lens so as to interfere with lateral vision.
FWIW, I think this is entirely legitimate, since your peripheral vision is definitely impaired. That wouldn't be the case if the information was on a HUD instead.
But even if there was some hypothetical VR headset that has perfect peripheral vision pass-through, it's still at best ambiguously legal until the legislature takes action.
By the way, a HUD is probably illegal too, CA Veh Code § 26708 (2022)
> (2) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that obstructs or reduces the driver's clear view through the windshield or side windows.
There is a list of exceptions to this, but none appear to apply.
There are actually carve outs for these, although I agree the fact that the HUD is "transparent" makes it ambiguous (still, I think you can argue it "reduces" the driver's "clear view").
Without those carve outs, yes, they'd clearly be illegal.
Here's the relevant provisions:
> (b) This section does not apply to any of the following:
> (1) Rearview mirrors.
> (11) An electronic communication device affixed to the center uppermost portion of the interior of a windshield within an area that is not greater than five inches square, if the device provides either of the following:
> (A) The capability for enforcement facilities of the Department of the California Highway Patrol to communicate with a vehicle equipped with the device.
> (B) The capability for electronic toll and traffic management on public or private roads or facilities.
> (12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.
> (13) (A) A video event recorder with the capability of monitoring driver performance to improve driver safety, which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver, in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, or in a five-inch square mounted to the center uppermost portion of the interior of the windshield. As used in this section, “video event recorder” means a video recorder that continuously records in a digital loop, recording audio, video, and G-force levels, but saves video only when triggered by an unusual motion or crash or when operated by the driver to monitor driver performance.
Are there any cars like that?
At any rate, for such cars to receive regulatory approval, they would need to be vetted to ensure that the UI elements don't exacerbate blind spots or hide critical pieces of the road, etc. The Apple UI is not designed with that in mind and may not give any such guarantees, and even if it were, it's still possible to abuse. There is also a formal process for removing such cars from the road if it turns out that they don't function as expected; whereas chasing down Apple Pro Vision users is left to the relevant highway patrol units.
Even if, in theory, the Apple device could be used safely, what happens in practice is far more important than theoretical use cases.
This is different from a headset where you are not seeing things directly but instead through cameras and some amount of visual processing. Also, vehicle HUDs show limited info and are not distracting eg they don’t project a game or video on your windshield.
That sort of headset looks like it would obstruct a good amount of your peripheral vision.
You also lose most of your peripheral vision while wearing it.
A future model certified for driving, redundant and paired with a car’s cameras/sensors would be completely “Air Force” awesome but we are not there yet.
1. Field of View alone is the reason enough to ban it on the road. You don't see shit to the sides.
2. The amount of data presented (area) is an order of magnitude more in a case of a VR helmet than a typical HUD.
3. The type of content presented is way different, in the car the content is "boring" it's just a steady stream of telemetry so to say. No one stares at the tachometer most of the time they ride without interruptions. Unlike some media content like a movie, game, stream etc.
4. The brightness of the content is way higher than of a HUD.
5. Headphones block external sounds.
Pass-through is done by cameras, not by window. This would more be like not having a actual windshield but a monitor. So you have the same issues of delay, ability for the device to malfunction and go completely black, glitches, etc. Though it is a bit worse, you have a very constrained field of view, so you aren't able to see any of the things from the side. Which you may not always consciously notice, but your brain sure does account for that information.
Information drawn on a windshield is very different than outside world captured by CCD sensors, processed and reprojected on a low-resolution, low-FOV screen.