6 ms·

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. As someone who was in an accident less than a week ago due to an inattentive driver: ## PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROAD

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. As someone who was in an accident less than a week ago due to an inattentive driver: ## PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROAD. YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE THERE.

golergka 3y ago
How is that different from cars that project information on the windshield? The virtual windows are right there in front of you where the road is, not a smartphone that you have to move your eyes to. (This is an question, not an argument. I don't drive, so I honestly don't understand).
- ender341341 3y ago
  Mostly cause externally it's impossible to tell if they're watching a movie or just have some sort of HUD up for navigation.
- nwiswell 3y ago
  Mainly because laws. Refer to CA Veh Code § 23120 (2022) > 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.
  - adolph 3y ago
    So no safety goggles?
    - nwiswell 3y ago
      Yep. No ridiculous sunglasses either.
  - godelski 3y ago
    IANAL but that doesn't sound like a HUD would be illegal. Unless it is illegal to have dash cams, phone mounts, or even my car's distance sensor since it is behind my review mirror. Probably depends on the precise definition of obstruct and "clear view" though I think you can make a better case for a HUD since it is transparent and a lot of the markups I've seen do away with a lot of the dashboard so you'd end up with actually an increased view. But laws are weird, so I'm just curious if others know and can clarify this for me. I'm more writing asking to be corrected than writing to assert what the law is.
    - nwiswell 3y ago
      > dash cams, phone mounts, or even my car's distance sensor since it is behind my review mirror. 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.
- haswell 3y ago
  I think this is extremely different for a few reasons: 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
- connicpu 3y ago
  The difference is interaction. I haven't ever been in a car with a windshield HUD, but I assume it doesn't require specific driver interaction to use. Using your smartphone while driving is also very illegal and can get you an expensive ticket. Anything that shifts your attention away from the road is dangerous, even if it's "in front of you". Passive information is very different from interactive menus.
- mattlondon 3y ago
  I have no idea having not used an apple headset but a few thoughts are: latency compared to real-world, reduced peripheral vision, but probably the biggest is distraction
- neilk 3y ago
  The latency of passthrough video through glass windows is really good. Like way less than 1ms. Also, they’ve figured out how the passthrough keeps working even if the device isn’t powered.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- eslaught 3y ago
  > How is that different from cars that project information on the windshield? 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.
  - FanaHOVA 3y ago
    Yes, I rented a BMW X7 on a trip and it had a HUD projected on the windshield.
  - amalcon 3y ago
    I once had a rental that projected a speedometer low on the windshield (and some other gauges I think). Of course, Apple Vision can project anything -- not just information related to vehicle operation.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      The really important bit is it HAS to project everything. When it stops projecting you're left literally in the dark, and that's a poor failure state when you're hurtling along at 70 mph.
      - amalcon 3y ago
        There was also a regular dashboard that one could use in that situation.
        SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        I mean for a vision pro.
- Gare 3y ago
  Apple VisionPro is not see-through, you are looking at a camera feed.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  Isn’t the headset constraining your FOV?
- fnordlord 3y ago
  I imagine it's also not truly see-through so if there's any kind of technical issue where the screen turns off or goes black, or it decides to put windows up where your eyes are focused, you are driving with a blindfold on.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  The one I have for my car is very basic info. Current speed, posted speed, and next turn/lane if I am using navigation. I think it can show current radio station if I scroll it from the steering wheel. Callerid if someone calls and I have it set to use bluetooth. I find it very nice as I do not have to take my eyes off the road. That sort of headset looks like it would obstruct a good amount of your peripheral vision.
- buildbuildbuild 3y ago
  Other issues aside, a person could not pass a driving vision test wearing Vision Pro. Its resolution is great but not that great, especially in extreme lighting. 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.
- sph 3y ago
  Who are you gonna sue when the VR headset lags for a few ms and causes an accident? 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.
- roughly 3y ago
  Vision’s field of vision is ~100deg or so, so it substantially impacts peripheral vision and awareness. The cameras add almost, but not actually, zero lag or visual distortion, so visual acuity is impacted. The Vision windows occlude anything behind them, whereas typical car HUDs do much less of this. The car hud is also usually limited to information directly related to driving, whereas the Vision is not, and while it’s possible the user was only using a navigation app off to the bottom corner, I’ve got my doubts.
- agloe_dreams 3y ago
  The Vision Pro is not an actual AR headset - it does not offer optical passthrough. Just digital reprojection of the exterior cameras. In case of a bug or crash, you are now blind.
- WesleyJohnson 3y ago
  When you're wearing the headset, you're not truly seeing what's in front of you in realtime; it's not a window. Instead, you're seeing a video using the cameras on the exterior of the device which is then streamed to the displays on the interior. This introduces latency. The published stats are something absurd, like 12ms which is allegedly faster than the human eye can even perceive, but what if there's a CPU spike and lag? 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.
  - leptons 3y ago
    The AR aspects of the headset also obscure the wearers view. He could a 72" "TV" being displayed inside the headset, obscuring the road completely.
  - redwall_hp 3y ago
    A windshield HUD is limited to displaying information used to operate the car. The Vision Pro is limited to displaying things that are not related to operating the car and are generally things you should under no circumstances do while operating a car.
- jacobsenscott 3y ago
  The AVP is not transparent like a windshield. They make it look like transparent ski googles, but it isn't. It has cameras pointing forward, and it displays that on the screen inside the headset. So all kinds of things will go wrong - the display can lag, freeze, turn off, etc. It would be like driving down the highway in reverse using only your backup camera.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  It is extremely different. 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.
- ocrow 3y ago
  AR goggles have a relatively narrow field of vision making it less likely to notice peripheral movement, such is critical for driving. They have quite short battery life – just a couple of hours. When they fail, you are effectively blind until you remove them. They can also fail due to a software glitch or crash. Removing the goggles can be disorienting and fiddly. They can be set so that there is little or no passthrough of external video – which would be highly hazardous, even if done accidentally. It's not really possible to establish eye contact with someone wearing AR goggles, which can be important when interacting with a driver. They're also not legal eyewear for driving.
- godelski 3y ago
  > How is that different from cars that project information on the windshield? 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.
williamcotton 3y ago
This extends to taking your damn time when the light goes green at an intersection during rush hour, entering a freeway 20 mph below the flow of traffic, and not using your turn signals. Serenity now, serenity now!
- switchbak 3y ago
  Taking your time when the light turns green makes sense when there's a bunch of jackasses speeding up to zip in before (and sometimes after) the light turns red. Or at least paying attention and using caution, even though the light says you're clear to proceed.
  - jimmaswell 3y ago
    Yeah, someone I know just got hit by a red light runner the other day. It doesn't hurt to look.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      In fact you must look. A red light won't stop anyone from t-boning you if they aren't paying attention.
      - dunham 3y ago
        There is an intersection in Seattle (Latona and 50th Ave NE) where I've seen people run a red light from a dead stop, because there are two layers of lights on 50th and the furthest turns green when traffic from Latona is green. https://maps.app.goo.gl/xoUByEzUYExqe8Uc9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/xoUByEzUYExqe8Uc9 (Street view of the two sets of lights)
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    I’m talking about being in a long line of cars who are waiting at a light and the person five back who takes 10 seconds to start moving. It is not because they are playing it safe!
- 3y ago

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. As someone who was in an accident less than a week ago due to an inattentive driver: ## PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROAD. YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE THERE.

golergka 3y ago

How is that different from cars that project information on the windshield? The virtual windows are right there in front of you where the road is, not a smartphone that you have to move your eyes to. (This is an question, not an argument. I don't drive, so I honestly don't understand).

ender341341 3y ago
Mostly cause externally it's impossible to tell if they're watching a movie or just have some sort of HUD up for navigation.
nwiswell 3y ago
Mainly because laws. Refer to CA Veh Code § 23120 (2022) > 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.
- adolph 3y ago
  So no safety goggles?
  - nwiswell 3y ago
    Yep. No ridiculous sunglasses either.
- godelski 3y ago
  IANAL but that doesn't sound like a HUD would be illegal. Unless it is illegal to have dash cams, phone mounts, or even my car's distance sensor since it is behind my review mirror. Probably depends on the precise definition of obstruct and "clear view" though I think you can make a better case for a HUD since it is transparent and a lot of the markups I've seen do away with a lot of the dashboard so you'd end up with actually an increased view. But laws are weird, so I'm just curious if others know and can clarify this for me. I'm more writing asking to be corrected than writing to assert what the law is.
  - nwiswell 3y ago
    > dash cams, phone mounts, or even my car's distance sensor since it is behind my review mirror. 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.
haswell 3y ago
I think this is extremely different for a few reasons: 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
connicpu 3y ago
The difference is interaction. I haven't ever been in a car with a windshield HUD, but I assume it doesn't require specific driver interaction to use. Using your smartphone while driving is also very illegal and can get you an expensive ticket. Anything that shifts your attention away from the road is dangerous, even if it's "in front of you". Passive information is very different from interactive menus.
mattlondon 3y ago
I have no idea having not used an apple headset but a few thoughts are: latency compared to real-world, reduced peripheral vision, but probably the biggest is distraction
neilk 3y ago
The latency of passthrough video through glass windows is really good. Like way less than 1ms. Also, they’ve figured out how the passthrough keeps working even if the device isn’t powered.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
eslaught 3y ago
> How is that different from cars that project information on the windshield? 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.
- FanaHOVA 3y ago
  Yes, I rented a BMW X7 on a trip and it had a HUD projected on the windshield.
- amalcon 3y ago
  I once had a rental that projected a speedometer low on the windshield (and some other gauges I think). Of course, Apple Vision can project anything -- not just information related to vehicle operation.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    The really important bit is it HAS to project everything. When it stops projecting you're left literally in the dark, and that's a poor failure state when you're hurtling along at 70 mph.
    - amalcon 3y ago
      There was also a regular dashboard that one could use in that situation.
      - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        I mean for a vision pro.
Gare 3y ago
Apple VisionPro is not see-through, you are looking at a camera feed.
alkonaut 3y ago
Isn’t the headset constraining your FOV?
fnordlord 3y ago
I imagine it's also not truly see-through so if there's any kind of technical issue where the screen turns off or goes black, or it decides to put windows up where your eyes are focused, you are driving with a blindfold on.
sumtechguy 3y ago
The one I have for my car is very basic info. Current speed, posted speed, and next turn/lane if I am using navigation. I think it can show current radio station if I scroll it from the steering wheel. Callerid if someone calls and I have it set to use bluetooth. I find it very nice as I do not have to take my eyes off the road. That sort of headset looks like it would obstruct a good amount of your peripheral vision.
buildbuildbuild 3y ago
Other issues aside, a person could not pass a driving vision test wearing Vision Pro. Its resolution is great but not that great, especially in extreme lighting. 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.
sph 3y ago
Who are you gonna sue when the VR headset lags for a few ms and causes an accident? 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.
roughly 3y ago
Vision’s field of vision is ~100deg or so, so it substantially impacts peripheral vision and awareness. The cameras add almost, but not actually, zero lag or visual distortion, so visual acuity is impacted. The Vision windows occlude anything behind them, whereas typical car HUDs do much less of this. The car hud is also usually limited to information directly related to driving, whereas the Vision is not, and while it’s possible the user was only using a navigation app off to the bottom corner, I’ve got my doubts.
agloe_dreams 3y ago
The Vision Pro is not an actual AR headset - it does not offer optical passthrough. Just digital reprojection of the exterior cameras. In case of a bug or crash, you are now blind.
WesleyJohnson 3y ago
When you're wearing the headset, you're not truly seeing what's in front of you in realtime; it's not a window. Instead, you're seeing a video using the cameras on the exterior of the device which is then streamed to the displays on the interior. This introduces latency. The published stats are something absurd, like 12ms which is allegedly faster than the human eye can even perceive, but what if there's a CPU spike and lag? 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.
- leptons 3y ago
  The AR aspects of the headset also obscure the wearers view. He could a 72" "TV" being displayed inside the headset, obscuring the road completely.
- redwall_hp 3y ago
  A windshield HUD is limited to displaying information used to operate the car. The Vision Pro is limited to displaying things that are not related to operating the car and are generally things you should under no circumstances do while operating a car.
jacobsenscott 3y ago
The AVP is not transparent like a windshield. They make it look like transparent ski googles, but it isn't. It has cameras pointing forward, and it displays that on the screen inside the headset. So all kinds of things will go wrong - the display can lag, freeze, turn off, etc. It would be like driving down the highway in reverse using only your backup camera.
Yizahi 3y ago
It is extremely different. 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.
ocrow 3y ago
AR goggles have a relatively narrow field of vision making it less likely to notice peripheral movement, such is critical for driving. They have quite short battery life – just a couple of hours. When they fail, you are effectively blind until you remove them. They can also fail due to a software glitch or crash. Removing the goggles can be disorienting and fiddly. They can be set so that there is little or no passthrough of external video – which would be highly hazardous, even if done accidentally. It's not really possible to establish eye contact with someone wearing AR goggles, which can be important when interacting with a driver. They're also not legal eyewear for driving.
godelski 3y ago
> How is that different from cars that project information on the windshield? 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.

williamcotton 3y ago

This extends to taking your damn time when the light goes green at an intersection during rush hour, entering a freeway 20 mph below the flow of traffic, and not using your turn signals. Serenity now, serenity now!

switchbak 3y ago
Taking your time when the light turns green makes sense when there's a bunch of jackasses speeding up to zip in before (and sometimes after) the light turns red. Or at least paying attention and using caution, even though the light says you're clear to proceed.
- jimmaswell 3y ago
  Yeah, someone I know just got hit by a red light runner the other day. It doesn't hurt to look.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    In fact you must look. A red light won't stop anyone from t-boning you if they aren't paying attention.
    - dunham 3y ago
      There is an intersection in Seattle (Latona and 50th Ave NE) where I've seen people run a red light from a dead stop, because there are two layers of lights on 50th and the furthest turns green when traffic from Latona is green. https://maps.app.goo.gl/xoUByEzUYExqe8Uc9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/xoUByEzUYExqe8Uc9 (Street view of the two sets of lights)
- williamcotton 3y ago
  I’m talking about being in a long line of cars who are waiting at a light and the person five back who takes 10 seconds to start moving. It is not because they are playing it safe!
3y ago