Spain's traffic authority mulls requiring certified driving glasses

Spain's DGT mulls requiring certified glasses behind the wheel

Do you really need a special pair of glasses to drive? Spain's Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT, the national traffic authority) has floated the possibility of banning conventional sunglasses and requiring a specific, certified model made only for use while driving. The story, published by El Nacional.cat, has landed like a bucket of cold water on drivers, who see the measure as a new tax disguised as road safety. The official argument is visibility in certain situations, but the timeline for the measure and who will sell the glasses remain unclear.

What exactly the DGT is proposing

The body in charge of road safety in Spain is, according to the published information, considering removing conventional sunglasses from cars and replacing them with specific glasses made solely for driving. The stated justification is improving visibility in certain light conditions, especially when the sun dazzles or when there are reflections on wet asphalt. The measure would reportedly be part of a supposed review of traffic regulations.

The news has not gone down well. Some argue that the DGT has spent years looking for new ways to raise revenue and that this is just one more. Others point directly to the lack of data: there is no explanation of how many accidents would be avoided, how much the certified glasses would cost, or who would manufacture them. The very outlet publishing the story is questioned by some readers, who point out that El Nacional.cat is hardly a byword for journalistic rigor.

The business behind certification

The most repeated suspicion is a sweetheart deal. If the DGT requires a specific model of glasses, someone will have to make and sell them. And that someone, according to the usual pattern, will be a company friendly with the governing party. The calculation making the rounds is simple: the requirements are published in the BOE (Spain's official state gazette), and the next day a product appears in the catalog of a company that, coincidentally, got ahead of events. Months later, the officials who drafted the rule take early retirement and land seats on the seller's board of directors.

It is not a far-fetched theory, according to those who hold it. It is the modus operandi, they claim, seen in other sectors, from face masks to antigen tests. The difference is that here the product is for daily use and mandatory for millions of drivers. The cost will not be paid by the state, but out of the pocket of every Spaniard who owns a car.

Polarized glasses and the screen problem

One of the technical arguments put forward is that polarized glasses are better for driving because they eliminate reflections. That is true: polarized glasses reduce glare from asphalt and water. But it is also true that the digital screens of modern cars look worse through them. And there are more and more screens: satnavs, instrument clusters, infotainment systems. The glasses that improve your view of the asphalt worsen your view of the screen.

Some point out that airline pilots are banned by law from wearing polarized glasses, precisely because of the problems they cause with screens and instruments. If the DGT wants to impose a technical pair of glasses, it would have to clarify what kind of glasses and for which car. Because a 2010 compact with analog controls is not the same as a 2024 electric car with three touchscreens.

The cost to the driver

The question nobody answers is how much the certified glasses will cost. Regular sunglasses cost between 10 and 30 euros at any optician's or supermarket. A pair with official certification, made in a limited series and bearing the DGT seal, will not come in under 50 or 60 euros, according to circulating estimates. Multiply by two, because the driver will need one pair and the front-seat passenger another. And add the case, the cord and the cleaning cloth, which will also be sold separately.

On top of that comes the administrative cost. If the glasses have to be certified, someone will have to verify that they are. The traffic police? DGT officers? The manufacturers themselves? Every check adds bureaucracy, and every bureaucracy adds time and money. The result is that the driver will pay twice: once for the glasses and once for the system that controls them.

The lack of data and the warning triangle precedent

The measure is presented as an improvement in road safety, but it comes with no data. There is no word on how many accidents are caused by glare, how many would be avoided with certified glasses, or how much the change would cost. Without those figures, the measure is an opinion, not a public policy.

The precedent of the emergency warning triangle is telling. Some claim it was made mandatory for years, until it turned out it caused more accidents than it prevented. The science — the same science now invoked to justify the glasses — was slow to arrive. The same could happen with glasses: imposed first, evaluated later, if at all.

What people are saying

The majority reaction is rejection. The argument goes that the DGT is bored and wakes up every morning thinking about how to make life difficult for citizens. People point out there are already too many mandatory items in the car: tires, spares, a high-visibility vest, warning triangles, emergency lights. Meanwhile, the roads remain full of potholes and incivil go unpursued.

Others say the measure is yet another example of the government's interventionist drift. First the vaccine, then the ELbichito passport, then the plastic tax, now the glasses. The feeling is that there is less and less room for individual choice and more rules dictating how to live. The driver, they say, is no longer a citizen: it is a herd to be penned in.

---

In the end, the question is not whether certified glasses improve road safety. The question is who will sell them, how much they will cost, and why nobody has yet produced the study that justifies them. Once that is clear, we will know whether this is a safety measure or a business venture with the BOE as a partner.