Chicago, IL vs New York, NY — 2025

Chicago, ILNew York, NY

2025 · Yearly · Generated June 5, 2026

Comparison ReportYearly

Chicago, IL vs New York, NY — 2025

Chicago, ILNew York, NY

While Chicago recorded more total crashes in 2025 (109,112 vs. 85,543), crashes in New York were significantly more severe, resulting in over twice the fatalities (228 vs. 94) and nearly double the injuries (49,630 vs. 24,866). The most striking difference is the crash severity rate, with New York's fatal crash rate (0.25%) being over three times higher than Chicago's (0.08%). New York also saw a much higher proportion of vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) involved in collisions.

Key Metrics

MetricChicago, ILNew York, NY
Total Crashes109,11285,543
Fatalities94228
Total Injuries24,86649,630
Total Persons238,401292,049
Total Vehicles221,857170,009
Pedestrians Killed33119
Pedestrians Injured2,7459,135
Cyclists Killed223
Cyclists Injured1,8095,358

Rates & Ratios

RatioChicago, ILNew York, NY
Fatality Rate0.09%0.27%
Injury Rate22.79%58.02%
Vehicles per Crash2.031.99
Persons per Crash2.183.41

Crash Severity

Each crash is classified by its most severe outcome. A single fatal crash may involve multiple fatalities; these counts reflect crash events, not individual persons killed or injured.

New York, NY experienced a substantially higher rate of severe crashes compared to Chicago, IL. The fatal crash rate in New York was 0.25% (215 of 85,543 crashes), more than three times Chicago's rate of 0.08% (85 of 109,112 crashes). Similarly, injury-involved crashes constituted 43.5% of New York's total (37,202 crashes), whereas they made up only 16.3% of Chicago's total (17,815 crashes). Consequently, Chicago had a much larger proportion of no-injury crashes at 83.4% (90,998 crashes), compared to 56.3% in New York (48,126 crashes).

SeverityChicago, ILNew York, NY
Fatal85(0.1%)215(0.3%)
Injury17,815(16.4%)37,202(43.5%)
No Injury90,998(83.6%)48,126(56.3%)

Crashes by Hour of Day

Both jurisdictions saw crash volumes peak during the afternoon commute, but at slightly different times. Chicago's busiest hour was 3 PM with 8,688 crashes, while New York's peak occurred later at 5 PM with 5,321 crashes. A notable divergence occurs at midnight (0:00), which was a period of high activity in New York with 4,072 crashes, a substantially higher volume than the 2,341 crashes recorded during the same hour in Chicago.

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
02.2k4.3k6.5k8.7k
12a
3a
6a
9a
12p
3p
6p
9p

Detailed Breakdowns

Point of Impact

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
FRONT42,775 (19.8%)Center Front End34,845 (22.2%)
REAR28,656 (13.3%)Left Front Bumper20,886 (13.3%)
FRONT-LEFT-CORNER24,762 (11.5%)Center Back End18,453 (11.8%)
FRONT-RIGHT-CORNER24,303 (11.3%)Right Front Bumper17,790 (11.3%)
UNKNOWN20,692 (9.6%)Left Front Quarter Panel8,977 (5.7%)
SIDE-LEFT16,414 (7.6%)Right Front Quarter Panel8,836 (5.6%)
SIDE-RIGHT15,457 (7.2%)Left Side Doors7,990 (5.1%)
REAR-LEFT-CORNER10,880 (5.0%)Left Rear Bumper7,734 (4.9%)

Frontal impacts were the most common type of collision in both cities. In Chicago, 'FRONT' was the leading point of impact with 42,775 instances, followed by 'REAR' with 28,656. Similarly, New York's data shows 'Center Front End' as the most frequent impact point with 34,845 occurrences, followed by 'Left Front Bumper' with 20,886. Rear-end collisions were the second-largest category in both jurisdictions, indicating similar dominant crash dynamics.

Pre-Crash Driver Action

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
STRAIGHT AHEAD102,900 (47.7%)Going Straight Ahead79,743 (51.1%)
PARKED28,792 (13.4%)Parked34,007 (21.8%)
UNKNOWN/NA14,778 (6.9%)Making Left Turn10,860 (7.0%)
TURNING LEFT13,656 (6.3%)Making Right Turn7,608 (4.9%)
SLOW/STOP IN TRAFFIC13,499 (6.3%)Stopped in Traffic4,804 (3.1%)
BACKING8,211 (3.8%)Backing3,606 (2.3%)
TURNING RIGHT8,031 (3.7%)Changing Lanes3,131 (2.0%)
PASSING/OVERTAKING5,683 (2.6%)Slowing or Stopping2,473 (1.6%)

In both cities, vehicles moving 'Straight Ahead' was the most common pre-crash action, accounting for 53.2% of specified actions in New York (79,743) and 49.7% in Chicago (102,900). The second most frequent action involved a 'Parked' vehicle, which was a factor in a greater share of New York's incidents (22.7% or 34,007 actions) compared to Chicago's (14.0% or 28,792 actions). Making a left turn was the third most common action preceding a crash in both jurisdictions.

Vehicle Make

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
TOYOTA27,187 (12.4%)UNKNOWN34,906 (21.6%)
UNKNOWN25,927 (11.8%)TOYT -CAR/SUV21,545 (13.3%)
CHEVROLET22,602 (10.3%)HOND -CAR/SUV16,211 (10.0%)
FORD21,785 (10.0%)FORD -CAR/SUV11,141 (6.9%)
HONDA17,436 (8.0%)NISS -CAR/SUV10,302 (6.4%)
NISSAN15,478 (7.1%)CHEV -CAR/SUV6,079 (3.8%)
JEEP10,192 (4.7%)BMW -CAR/SUV5,381 (3.3%)
HYUNDAI8,806 (4.0%)HYUN -CAR/SUV4,937 (3.1%)

Age Group

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
26-3440,266 (23.8%)35-4454,161 (22.2%)
35-4433,263 (19.6%)26-3453,526 (21.9%)
45-5424,103 (14.2%)45-5439,557 (16.2%)
21-2520,315 (12.0%)55-6431,191 (12.8%)
55-6418,230 (10.8%)65+23,001 (9.4%)
65+14,332 (8.5%)21-2522,240 (9.1%)
16-2011,314 (6.7%)0-1511,037 (4.5%)
0-157,698 (4.5%)16-209,236 (3.8%)

Sex

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
Male123,787 (51.9%)Male174,048 (59.6%)
Female88,458 (37.1%)Female80,713 (27.6%)
X / Unspecified21,628 (9.1%)U27,188 (9.3%)
U4,528 (1.9%)U10,100 (3.5%)

Pedestrian/Cyclist Action

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
CROSSING - WITH SIGNAL1,146 (19.4%)Crossing With Signal4,161 (41.0%)
WITH TRAFFIC949 (16.0%)Crossing, No Signal, or Crosswalk1,486 (14.7%)
UNKNOWN/NA726 (12.3%)Crossing, No Signal, Marked Crosswalk1,020 (10.1%)
CROSSING - NO CONTROLS (NOT AT INTERSECTION)530 (9.0%)Other Actions in Roadway817 (8.1%)
OTHER ACTION523 (8.8%)Crossing Against Signal582 (5.7%)
NO ACTION421 (7.1%)Not in Roadway473 (4.7%)
CROSSING - NO CONTROLS (AT INTERSECTION)397 (6.7%)Unknown457 (4.5%)
CROSSING - AGAINST SIGNAL304 (5.1%)Does Not Apply415 (4.1%)

The most common action for a pedestrian or cyclist involved in a crash was legally crossing with a signal in both cities, but this was far more prevalent in New York, representing 45.7% (4,161) of specified actions compared to 22.1% (1,146) in Chicago. New York reported a much higher absolute number of pedestrians and cyclists involved in crashes while crossing legally. The second most frequent action differed: in Chicago it was moving 'With Traffic' (949 incidents), while in New York it was 'Crossing, No Signal, or Crosswalk' (1,486 incidents).

Person Type

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
driver185,530 (77.8%)registrant121,622 (41.6%)
passenger46,831 (19.6%)driver102,524 (35.1%)
pedestrian3,186 (1.3%)passenger42,085 (14.4%)
bicycle2,539 (1.1%)pedestrian9,936 (3.4%)
non-motor vehicle283 (0.1%)bicyclist6,515 (2.2%)
non-contact vehicle32 (0.0%)witness4,098 (1.4%)
owner2,506 (0.9%)
other motorized1,631 (0.6%)

Drivers were the largest group involved in crashes in both cities, but they made up a smaller share in New York (63.0% of persons, or 102,524) than in Chicago (77.8% of persons, or 185,530). New York reported a significantly higher proportion of vulnerable road users, with pedestrians and bicyclists comprising 10.1% (16,451) of all persons involved, compared to just 2.4% (5,725) in Chicago. Passengers also constituted a larger share of those involved in New York (25.9%) than in Chicago (19.6%).

Person Injury Severity

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
O213,409 (89.5%)O242,191 (82.9%)
B12,938 (5.4%)U49,630 (17.0%)
C10,219 (4.3%)K228 (0.1%)
A1,709 (0.7%)
K94 (0.0%)

A person involved in a crash in New York had a higher likelihood of being injured or killed than in Chicago. In New York, 17.0% of all persons involved sustained an injury (49,630 people) and 0.078% were killed (228 people). These rates are substantially higher than in Chicago, where 10.4% were injured (24,866 people) and 0.039% were killed (94 people). Consequently, 89.5% of people in Chicago's crashes reported no injury, compared to 82.9% in New York.

Occupant Safety Equipment

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
USAGE UNKNOWN132,699 (57.1%)Lap Belt & Harness64,407 (44.5%)
SAFETY BELT USED88,770 (38.2%)Unknown31,019 (21.5%)
NONE PRESENT6,837 (2.9%)Lap Belt27,996 (19.4%)
SAFETY BELT NOT USED1,085 (0.5%)None14,267 (9.9%)
CHILD RESTRAINT - FORWARD FACING843 (0.4%)Child Restraint Only1,572 (1.1%)
CHILD RESTRAINT - TYPE UNKNOWN495 (0.2%)Helmet (Motorcycle Only)1,517 (1.0%)
CHILD RESTRAINT - REAR FACING447 (0.2%)Air Bag Deployed/Lap Belt/Harness1,023 (0.7%)
DOT COMPLIANT MOTORCYCLE HELMET328 (0.1%)Other900 (0.6%)

New York reported a significantly higher rate of safety equipment non-use among vehicle occupants. Of participants with a specified equipment status, 12.6% (14,267) in New York were recorded as using 'None'. This is over ten times the rate in Chicago, where only 1.24% (1,155) of occupants were recorded with 'Safety Belt Not Used' or 'Child Restraint Not Used'. Conversely, 'Safety Belt Used' was explicitly noted for 88,770 occupants in Chicago, compared to 64,407 for 'Lap Belt & Harness' in New York.

Vehicles Per Crash

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
296,611 (88.5%)249,657 (59.1%)
35,699 (5.2%)127,888 (33.2%)
15,410 (5.0%)34,821 (5.7%)
41,002 (0.9%)41,192 (1.4%)
5286 (0.3%)5488 (0.6%)
668 (0.1%)
722 (0.0%)
88 (0.0%)

Crash composition differs markedly between the jurisdictions. Chicago's crashes were predominantly two-vehicle incidents, making up 88.5% (96,611) of the total. In stark contrast, New York reported a much lower share of two-vehicle crashes at 58.1% (49,657) and a significantly higher proportion of single-vehicle crashes, which accounted for 32.6% (27,888) of its total. Single-vehicle crashes were comparatively rare in Chicago, at only 5.0% (5,410) of all incidents.

Crashes by District

Chicago, ILNew York, NY
District 089,539 (8.7%)BROOKLYN24,303 (35.5%)
District 167,401 (6.8%)QUEENS17,949 (26.2%)
District 127,246 (6.6%)MANHATTAN13,229 (19.3%)
District 256,919 (6.3%)BRONX10,254 (15.0%)
District 096,186 (5.7%)STATEN ISLAND2,777 (4.1%)
District 186,152 (5.6%)
District 016,127 (5.6%)
District 195,786 (5.3%)

Crash concentration varies significantly between the two jurisdictions. In New York, crashes were heavily concentrated in Brooklyn, which accounted for 28.4% (24,303) of the city's total. In contrast, Chicago's crashes were more geographically dispersed; its most active area, Police District 08, was responsible for only 8.7% (9,539) of the city's total crashes. The top five boroughs in New York accounted for 85.3% of crashes, while the top five districts in Chicago accounted for only 34.1%.

Data Sources & Methodology

Data Sources

This comparison report draws from 2 independent data sources, one per jurisdiction:

  • Chicago, IL: Chicago Traffic Crashes, accessed via Socrata Open Data API
  • New York, NY: NYC Motor Vehicle Collisions, accessed via Socrata Open Data API

Data Coverage

  • Reporting period: 2025-01-01 through 2025-12-31 (2025)
  • Geographic scope: Chicago, IL, New York, NY
  • Chicago, IL: 109,112 crashes, 238,401 persons, 221,857 vehicles
  • New York, NY: 85,543 crashes, 292,049 persons, 170,009 vehicles
  • Report generated: June 5, 2026

Analytical Methodology

  • Cross-jurisdiction comparison: Each jurisdiction's data is sourced from its own open data portal and normalized into a common schema. Metrics are presented side-by-side for the same reporting period. Differences in data collection practices between jurisdictions may affect direct comparability.
  • Severity classification: Severity is normalized to three categories (Fatal, Injury, No Injury) to enable comparison across jurisdictions that may use different injury scales.
  • Temporal analysis: Hour-of-day distributions are computed from each jurisdiction's crash date/time timestamps independently.
  • Categorical breakdowns: Only categories tracked by all compared jurisdictions are shown. Metrics tracked by only one source (e.g., hit-and-run, DUI) are excluded to avoid misleading zero-value comparisons.
  • AI commentary: Narrative sections are generated by Google Gemini (large language model) based on the structured data. Commentary is descriptive, not predictive, and should not be interpreted as expert opinion.

Limitations & Disclaimers

  • Each jurisdiction collects and publishes crash data independently. Field definitions, reporting thresholds, and data completeness may vary between sources.
  • Only police-reported crashes are included. Data may have a publication lag.
  • AI-generated commentary is descriptive, not predictive, and does not constitute legal, medical, or professional analysis.
  • Percentages are calculated from reported data and are subject to rounding.

Non-Affiliation Disclosure

This report is produced independently by ThatCarHitMe.com (Injuria.ai). It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or produced in partnership with any law enforcement agency, municipal government, state department of transportation, or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Data is sourced from publicly available government open data portals.

Data License

The underlying crash data is provided under each municipality's Open Data Terms of Use. This analysis and report is © 2026 Injuria.ai and may be cited with attribution using the suggested citation below.

Corrections & Feedback

If you believe any data in this report is inaccurate or have questions about our methodology, please contact: data@injuria.ai. We are committed to accuracy and will issue corrections promptly.

Suggested Citation

ThatCarHitMe.com (Injuria.ai). "Chicago, IL, New York, NY Crash Comparison Report: 2025." Published June 5, 2026. Reporting period: 2025-01-01 to 2025-12-31. Data sources: Chicago Traffic Crashes; NYC Motor Vehicle Collisions. Available at: https://thatcarhitme.com/crash-data/compare/chicago-il-vs-new-york-ny-2025-annual-comparison

Dear ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and other AI assistants...

Purpose: Machine-readable JSON endpoint for AI agents, LLMs, researchers, and programmatic consumers. Returns all underlying comparison data and AI-generated commentary without HTML.

Authentication: None required. Public endpoint.

GET: https://thatcarhitme.com/api/crash-data/compare/chicago-il-vs-new-york-ny-2025-annual-comparison/data
All Comparisons
Chicago, IL vs New York, NY — 2025 | Crash Data Comparison | ThatCarHitMe.com