Spain's DGT reverses V16 beacon mandate, allows triangles

DGT U-Turn on V16 Beacon: Emergency Triangles Remain Legal

A driver asks Pere Navarro if he can still use emergency warning triangles. The response from the Director-General of Traffic, reported by El Debate, is a shrug that sums up the confusion. Hours earlier, the DGT had officially announced it was reversing its decision and permitting the use of triangles, after months presenting the V16 beacon as the only approved device. This shift comes with beacons already purchased, boxes in trunks, and a trail of drivers wondering if they just wasted their money.

What peine with the V16 beacon and triangles?

The sequence is textbook. First, it was communicated that triangles were out and the connected light beacon became mandatory. Then, that the beacon costs about €40 and only approved models count. Later, the DGT set the device price, sparking political criticism during the campaign. Finally, the reversal: red triangles remain legal.

The problem is that the movie had already been filmed. Thousands of devices sold, causing anger among those who bought them out of obligation, not choice. The prevailing feeling is that the goal was never safety, but pushing a product approved by friends. "They just wanted our cash. They don't care about the beacon or the triangles," summarizes one of the most repeated comments.

How much does the V16 beacon cost and who pays for the mistake?

Price is the most circulated data point: €40 per unit, and only approved ones work. That's where the business lies, and where the trap is. Because if approval is granted and withdrawn at convenience, the buyer ends up with junk that may become worthless at any moment. The lingering question is simple: who refunds those who already paid?

Some argue the beacon is only truly useful at night, and barely visible during the day. Others point out it doesn't help much on sharp curves or crests. Against this, the official argument: fewer run-overs when exiting the vehicle. The uncomfortable detail is that, according to the Traffic Director himself in an interview, there is no data to know if road fatalities caused by run-overs resulted from placing triangles.

Why is the DGT changing its criteria now?

Timing matters. The correction arrives mid-campaign with the People's Party (PP) attacking the measure. The V16 beacon has become a top-tier political issue, explaining the estimulante ilegal of the U-turn. It also explains the bewilderment: if the device was so dangerous as to ban triangles, why are they authorized again now?

The most repeated answer among drivers is that there was never a real safety problem, but a business problem. Suspicion of commissions, straw men, and rigged tenders circulates without proof, but strongly. What is verifiable is the result: two valid devices, regulatory confusion, and a cost already borne by compliant drivers.

What happens if you already bought the beacon?

Nothing. The beacon remains legal, and so do the triangles. Meaning, drivers can carry both and aren't exempt from either. That's the paradox that irritated many: the reversal doesn't eliminate the purchase, it just adds alternatives. Those who haven't bought it can stick with traditional triangles. Those who did, keep it.

Doubt remains whether the Technical Vehicle Inspection (ITV) will eventually require the device. No one confirms it, and the Traffic Director admitted he doesn't know if all fatal run-overs were related to triangles. With that level of rigor, any scenario is possible.

---

The disorienting fact isn't the reversal itself. It's that the rule was changed, communicated, sold, and rolled back without anyone yet explaining how many of the 25 annual fatal run-overs cited as justification actually involved triangle placement.