Spain's DGT backs camera mirrors, warns of €200 fines

Spain's DGT pushes for camera mirrors and warns of €200 fines

Can a car drive without mirrors and just two screens? The Directorate General of Traffic (DGT) has decided that traditional plastic and glass mirrors are numbered and is betting on high-tech devices full of cameras. The stated goal: avoid accidents, widen the field of vision, eliminate blind spots, and better handle bad weather, such as rain fogging the glass. Meanwhile, the agency reminds drivers that driving without one of the required mirrors can result in fines up to €200.

The system already runs on some trucks under the name MAN Optiview. It consists of several external cameras and two large high-definition screens that allow monitoring everything around the vehicle. The cameras can fold, are water-resistant, filter glare, and adjust automatically. On the driver's side, there is a 12-inch screen with 1920 x 1080 pixel resolution, capable of showing auxiliary lines to calculate distances, adjusting brightness and contrast automatically, and offering three distinct views with zoom. Currently available only on trucks, the intention is for them to soon enter passenger cars.

What happens if the camera fails or you run out of battery

The question dominating the conversation is simple: what if the screen goes dark? A mirror doesn't break down, doesn't depend on power or communication, and if it breaks, you just find another and install it. The camera, however, carries problems with power supply and software. Some summarize it with irony: when the little camera breaks, call the tow truck. A flawless plan.

The most repeated technical argument points to the loss of depth perception. A monitor is flat; a mirror is not. The reflected image forms at different optical distances, allowing estimation of distances and speeds with a glance. On a screen, that depth is reconstructed by visual cues, not real optics. Hence the antiestéticar that the invention generates more risk than it eliminates, especially in quick maneuvers.

Added to this is the lag: a mirror has no measurable display delay, while a camera does. And dirt. A small lens gets dirty more easily than a wide surface, and rain soaks a camera faster than a mirror.

The cost: who pays for the device and who profits from it

Extra cost is the other major front. The technology isn't free and, in the scenario being drawn, the driver will pay for it. The first market vehicle with this alternative was the Audi E-Tron, with a system developed by a Spanish company, and since it was optional, nobody paid for the luxury. That data serves as a warning: what is sold as safety ends up being paid equipment.

Distrust towards the regulator runs through the matter from top to bottom. The DGT is described as a machine for collecting taxes and banning things, and it is recalled that the same Administration that now blesses cameras banned cars with exclusively electronic mirrors for years. This change of criteria is read as legal insecurity rather than technical pogre.

The blind spot already solved with a one-euro mirror

Facing the technological deployment, the cheap solution: the round mirrors that were stuck onto the rearview mirror and that many drivers have used for years. They solve the blind spot for very little money. The problem is that during the ITV (technical inspection), they force their removal because they are not homologated. The paradox arises that the safety provided by a one-euro mirror is not certified, while certification is prepared for a system that multiplies costs and adds failure points.

Dashcams, data, and the double standard of recording

If the car is full of cameras, why can't you record? The reflection is logical: if the vehicle already captures images of the surroundings, authorizing an dashcam with automatic deletion when there is no accident and with non-manipulable files doesn't seem like a big leap. Data protection is cited as a brake for individuals and as an excuse not to yield control of the evidence.

Trucks yes, cars we'll see

In large vehicles, consensus is broader: the blind spot is much larger and cameras can contribute. In passenger cars, however, utility is debated. Some also point out that the problem isn't focusing a mirror, but the constant jump between looking at 20 meters and back to 50 centimeters. And those who recall that Tesla saw its bet on eliminating mirrors rejected for aerodynamic reasons, leaving the feeling that regulatory criteria are not entirely technical.

For now, the movie remains a trailer: equipped trucks, waiting cars, and a €200 fine as a reminder that mirrors remain mandatory. When the screen flickers mid-overtake, we'll see who signs the report.