Because the person doing the claiming is only going to provide links that support their claim. Only a bad debater would make the other person's argument for them. Do your own searching would allow exposure to both sides of an argument.
If the sources they provide are biased and therefore suspect, that is a separate concern that can then be addressed. But having some source for your claims is table stakes for an intelligent discussion.
> (1) the person operating the motor vehicle was exercising due care; and
That law clearly states twice that "due care" needs to be taken otherwise it's not applicable. So compare and contrast this with the original claim by the parent commenter:
> legal for car drivers to mow down pedestrian protesters
I call bullshit on that. Thanks for the link.
>I call bullshit on that. Thanks for the link.
Sometimes hyperbole just isn't the right thing, but I seriously doubt the original poster honestly believes laws were created that allowed for mowing down of citizens willy nilly. Pedantic people go nuts and throw out the rest of the conversation on a caveat rather than keeping focus on the discussion. Laws were written that allows for a defense after running people over with your car. There's plenty to be left to the interpretation of lawyers to argue and judges to decide.
similarly:
>(b) This section does not affect a person's liability for an injury caused by grossly negligent conduct.
That is to say, you're not allowed to just mow them over.
Sources are nice not because they magically add quality to a post, but because you can check them for yourself.