From experience I know you have to witness someone driving to cite them. How does this law get enforced if the picture is only of the car and the driver cannot be seen. Most times I am sure the driver can be identified through interviews and paper trails but if you claimed the car was stolen or you lended it out...
Not in CA you dont!
These newer cameras are really clear....and this system has video too. They just match your picture to your DMV photo if you decide to fight it.
Cool, so if you commit a crime and there are no witnesses, you get off scot-free?
You don't need to witness a violation, you simply need to prove a violation... beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal matters, by a preponderance of the evidence for civil matters. To prove the violation, you need evidence. Eyewitness testimony is one form of evidence, but not the only form.
How does this law get enforced if the picture is only of the car and the driver cannot be seen.
According to the story, these particular cameras can get a shot of the driver.
Most times I am sure the driver can be identified through interviews and paper trails but if you claimed the car was stolen or you lended it out...
Oh, that'd be just bloody brilliant. You realize that to claim such a thing, you'd have to testify about it under oath, and you'd thus be committing perjury? The penalty for which is a heck of a lot higher than that for a moving violation? I can just see the cross-examination now:
"So it's your testimony that at the time of the incident, the vehicle was stolen? Did you report it to the police? Why not? Where were you at the time of the alleged offense, if not in your vehicle? Did anybody see you there? Has the vehicle been recovered? It has? What good luck for you! When did you get the vehicle back? How did you get it back? Did the thieves just have a sense of remorse and return it to you? Did you report that to the police? How long was the vehicle stolen? Oh, just long enough for the thieves to run a red light, and that's it? What a coincidence! Did you tell anybody that your car was stolen? Are those people available to testify under oath that you told them that your car was stolen?" And so on, and so forth. Sheesh.
I support this. It's a cheap way to enforce the law, and it's devoid of human frailties such as prejudice or nepotism. If the citizens don't like this method of enforcing the law, they can change either the method or the law.
We have them in AZ, it takes 2 photos, one of the driver and one of the Lic. plate.
IIRC, in this case the owner of the vehicle is ticketed, but no points can be assigned. If you loaned the car out, then go after the person you loaned it to I guess.
The way to legally get around that legal issue is to issue the citation as you would a parking ticket. The infraction follows the car not the driver.
Thus no insurance consequences and no need to really fight it in court. Since there is no long term record, it does not pay to hire a lawyer and those "caught" just pay.
IN essence if you have the money, you have the ability to buy your way out of obeying red lights. (Mr. Physics is another matter.)