V-16 Beacon: VOX's June Proposal and Subsequent U-Turn

The V-16 Beacon: What VOX Proposed and Now Questions

In June 2025, the Congress's Road Safety Commission approved a non-binding proposal to publicize the new regulations on the mandatory use of the V-16 light signal. That same month, VOX submitted its own initiative with a point that sounds contradictory today: enhancing the connectivity of this beacon with the DGT 3.0 platform. Months later, during a debate, some claim the same party is now asking for its removal, presenting it as an imposition by PSOE and PP. When a party advocates for something and then its opposite, the average driver's question is straightforward: who should we listen to about the beacon?

What Did VOX Propose for the V-16 Beacon in June 2025?

The text is documented and explicit. The proposal urged the Government to promote a media awareness campaign for drivers and road users, ensure maximum visibility and safety for tow trucks, and promote connectivity and the use of innovative technologies like the V16 beacon or smart cones. In his defense of the initiative, deputy Alcaraz expressly called for these three measures.

Those defending the party argue that at no point was the beacon made mandatory under penalty of a fine, nor was the device required to be forcibly connected. It was, they contend, connectivity: a word that, in their view, implies each driver decides whether to share their data. Critics respond that integrating into a public system is not the same as signing up for a newsletter. If the device communicates with the state network, the data leaves home.

Is the V-16 Beacon Already Mandatory, and Since When?

The regulatory framework has been in place for some time. A Royal Decree approved in 2022 sets the new luminous signal's entry into force for 2026. This four-year gap between approval and implementation is, for critics, sufficient reason to dismiss the rule due to procedural flaws: a decree is intended for highly urgent matters that cannot await ordinary legislation, not for projects that mature over five years. The date is significant because the warning triangle has an expiration date, and the V-16 aims to be the sole legal replacement device.

Therein lies the crux. If what is currently an option may tomorrow become the only way to drive without penalty, the debate transcends the technical. Proponents of the beacon remind us that the device aims to prevent the risks faced by tow truck operators on the hard shoulder. Detractors dismiss this justification: utility does not make a mandatory decree voluntary.

Is DGT 3.0 Optional Connectivity or Covert Control?

The DGT 3.0 platform allows drivers to receive real-time alerts. Some see it as an excellent idea, already implemented in other countries, arguing that the only issue is who manages it. Others reject this argument: DGT 3.0, in their opinion, is state infrastructure designed for geolocalization and mass data processing, and once the connected device becomes the only legal option, the word optional remains merely in the brochure.

This is where the discussion shifts from engineering to trust. Those who view the government as an adversary are uncomfortable with it receiving their car's signal. Those who find the tool useful are indifferent to who administers it, until the occupant of the Moncloa changes.

Low-Emission Zones: The Same Script on Another Front

The beacon issue is accompanied by the conflict over low-emission zones (LEZs). Here, the European Union comes into play, though not as often claimed: Brussels requires temporary measures during high pollution episodes, not permanent LEZs with cameras and fines, according to critics of the measure. LEZs have already been withdrawn in France, and Ciudad Real City Council approved its own with VOX's sole dissenting vote. The party has called a protest caravan in Madrid against LEZs.

The pattern repeats. First, the technical nuance, then the rejection of anything resembling an imposition, and underlying it, the same suspicion: that the rule does not pursue its stated objective. The citizen parking on the street cannot clearly distinguish when road safety becomes revenue generation.

What Nobody Disputes

There is one undeniable fact. Whoever wrote enhance in June is now defending the opposite, and those denouncing it cannot prove that Congress heeded anyone: the proposal was approved, yes, but it did not alter the mandatory nature, which remains tied to the 2022 decree and its 2026 entry into force. The device that some want to scrap and others claim to have promoted will arrive regardless, with or without political infighting.