In Gooden v. Transamerica Ins Corp, 166 Mich App 793, 800-801; 420 NW2d 877 (1988), the Court set forth the rationale underlying the no-fault insurance act as discussed in the context of parked vehicles: The basic goal of the no-fault insurance system is to provide individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents assured, adequate and prompt reparation for certain economic losses at the lowest cost to the individual and the system. The no-fault act does not purport to compensate accident victims for all economic losses. In Miller v. Auto-Owners Ins Co, 411 Mich 633; 309 NW2d 544 (1981), the Supreme Court stated that the policy underlying the parked vehicle exclusion was to eliminate from no-fault coverage those injuries where the involvement of the motor vehicle did not relate to its character as such. By limiting the coverage of no-fault benefits, "it appears that the Legislature was attempting to maintain cost controls over the system by limiting its scope." To expand coverage to include activity which is removed from the general use of motor vehicles would increase the costs of insurance and the incidence of litigation, thereby thwarting the legislative intent in enacting the no-fault system. In other words, to allow no-fault recovery, without regard to whether the injury resulted from a motor vehicle being used as such, would open up the system beyond its intended scope.