The topic of discussion is not what&#x27;s reasonable activity. Of course it&#x27;s reasonable to legally park your car outside, it&#x27;s also reasonable to go rock climbing.<p>We&#x27;re talking about insurance. There&#x27;s certain reasonable activity that exposes you to heightened risk. Your car is at higher risk parked outside than in a garage.<p>Who should assume the cost of that heightened risk? Should the insurance company charge a person with a garage and a person without one the same premiums? Should there be no consequences for damage that could have been avoided by storing your car in a garage?<p>If the answer to those questions is &quot;yes&quot; you&#x27;ve created a moral hazard. Why would anyone store their car in a safer location if their insurance company will pay for any damages without their premiums going up?<p>To categorically say that this shouldn&#x27;t be priced into insurance is to say that some buyers of insurance with higher risk profiles should be subsidized by those with lower risk profiles.<p>Now of course insurance companies are far from perfect. They have limited data to work with and it wouldn&#x27;t be cost effective to figure out whether some individual customer had a one-off freak accident or not.<p>But over their entire customer base it&#x27;s not an unreasonable approximation to connect your premiums to traffic incidents you were involved in, even though you were not at fault.<p>Not being at fault is not the same thing as not having exposed yourself to heightened risk. The police deals with the former, insurance companies deal with the latter.