I wasn't saying that in jest or exaggerating for dramatic effect. It's simply reality that today, unless you are drunk or high, you can kill someone who is walking in a crosswalk with your vehicle and get away with not even a ticket:

https://twitter.com/KeeganNYC/status/530515713405231105

Afterwards, police will, as in this case, make up a story how "the little kid broke free from its grandma" and decline to charge.

According to the news reports on the case that tweet is about, the police in fact ticketed the driver. A judge dismissed the tickets later, against the recommendation of the police.

It's standard operating procedure in SF, and not only will the police not bother to look at surveillance, but they will lie and claim they it doesn't exist [1].

[1] https://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/08/23/sfbc-finds-what-sfpd-d...

This is really scary I think!

In Denmark it is standard procedure to immediately arrest the other party and charge with manslaughter if there has been a fatality in an accident, no matter who might have been at fault. This way the police can gather information quickly from the driver and release him shortly after. An in depth investigation is always carried out to precisely map out what happened (this can take weeks), and not before that will charges be dropped depending on the result.

The difference is probably because US culture is very automobile focused and in some places downright hostile to cyclists and pedestrians, whereas in Denmark cycling is very popular.

The difference is that in NYC the cops can get away with that just by taking the surveillance tapes from the local businesses and then destroying them. In this case presumably they know the video will eventually come out.

Are there any reports that NYC police actually do or have done that?

When there's a crash, all information related to the crash should be public information: all raw telemetry information collect by the car, and the logic used to evaluate that telemetry. The idea any portion of this is proprietary is dangerous. If a police officer asks a human driver questions, and they refuse to answer, they can be compelled. If they are asked if they can think of anything else relevant that hasn't been explicitly asked about the accident, and they say no, and it turns out they did and were withholding information, that's a crime.

There must be equivalents for autonomous driving. They can't be allowed to shield themselves behind "proprietary information" claims.

In the United States lying to local police is generally speaking not a crime (certain lies can be, but saying you have no further information when you do is not one of them). Also you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself so you have every right to not answer questions if you suspect you are under a criminal investigation.

That being said in the United States non-human persons such as corporations have no such rights.