It isn't a very hard hurdle to clear, but it cuts both ways.In most places where traffic cameras are legal, they don't have to "prove" it's you by a standard of "reasonable doubt". The standard is the much lower: "preponderance of the evidence". Not a hard hurdle to make...
When I lived in Arlington, I got a traffic ticket in the mail with a traffic cam picture from DC indicating I was doing 50 mph in a 45 mph zone.
The options they gave me were to pay the fine or provide the name and address of who ever was driving my car if it was not me, with a threat that if I did not pay it in X number of days the fine would double.
Well...ok...challenge accepted...largely because I knew that particular traffic cam and it was in an area where they kept changing the speed limit on a regular basis and then ticketing people who were just going with the traffic flow, anytime they could get just one car in the "cone" at a time.
Since the photo was date and time stamped, I replied with a name, address phone and phone number. It was not however the name of my girl friend who had borrowed my Jeep that day, but rather the person I was working with in a suburb on the north side of Baltimore at that particular date and time with an invitation for them to contact that person who could verify I that I could not have possibly been driving my Jeep in DC at that time.
I also advised in my letter that I had absolutely no legal obligation to provide the name of the person who had been borrowing my vehicle at that time, and that I was neither obligated nor paid to investigate anything for the DC traffic police (or more correctly the contractor that operated their traffic cams).
I didn't hear anything at all back from them for several months, but I eventually got a letter stating the ticket had been dismissed. No big surprise there.