Dear Editor,
As a Public Communications Analyst, I have been researching the issue of unauthorised emergency warning devices on private vehicles for some time, and I am pleased to see law enforcement taking stronger action against this practice. The September 28, 2026, Guyana Chronicle report, “Police seize more than $2M in illegal sirens,” highlights an issue that deserves considerably more public attention.[1] According to Traffic Chief, Assistant Commissioner of Police Mahendra Singh, police, fire service vehicles and ambulances are the categories legally authorised to use sirens, gongs or bells.
This is not simply a matter of motorists having additional equipment installed on their vehicles. Emergency warning devices carry a particular meaning on our roads. When a siren or emergency light is activated, motorists are expected to respond differently because they believe an authorised emergency vehicle is approaching or responding to an incident. Allowing unauthorised vehicles to imitate those signals can create confusion and potentially dangerous situations, particularly on congested roads.
I am particularly encouraged by the Traffic Department’s use of technology and public reporting to identify suspected offenders. The use of Safe City, Safe Country cameras, SRIS cameras and information submitted through the Road Watch application demonstrates how modern enforcement tools can assist the police in identifying vehicles that may otherwise be difficult to detect. Public cooperation is equally important, because responsible reporting can help authorities identify patterns of behaviour that threaten road safety.
However, enforcement should not focus only on removing the equipment from vehicles. There should also be consideration of how these devices are being sold, supplied and installed for unauthorised use. If restricted emergency equipment can be readily obtained and installed by private individuals or businesses, then there may be a wider regulatory issue that deserves examination. Dealers, installers and vehicle owners should understand the legal consequences associated with the misuse of equipment intended for emergency services.
There is also an important principle of equality before the law. A vehicle should not receive emergency privileges simply because it is associated with a contractor, private security company, business executive or another organisation. If the law identifies the categories of vehicles authorised to use these devices, those provisions should apply consistently. The public should be able to recognise that a siren or emergency light represents legitimate emergency authority rather than the personal status or influence of the vehicle’s occupant.
Guyana’s roads already present motorists with enough challenges without introducing uncertainty over who is genuinely responding to an emergency. Unauthorised sirens and emergency lights can encourage motorists to react suddenly, potentially creating additional hazards for pedestrians and other road users. Genuine emergency services depend on the public recognising and responding appropriately to their signals, so protecting the integrity of those signals is a public-safety issue.
I therefore welcome the Traffic Department’s recent seizures and hope this enforcement effort continues. At the same time, public education should accompany enforcement so that vehicle owners, businesses and equipment suppliers clearly understand what is permitted and what is prohibited. Emergency warning devices should retain their meaning and purpose. When a siren sounds on Guyana’s roads, the public should be confident that it belongs to a vehicle that is legally authorised to be responding to an emergency.