If you define "driving OK" as "not going to get a ticket, not going to be assigned liability in a collision" ... yes, that's exactly what it means. (Especially if you're a cop, but you don't have to be a cop for this one.)

A cop isn't likely to give you a ticket for failing to look for traffic going the wrong way on the road. And if there's an accident with damages and it goes to a jury, the jury isn't likely to rule in favor of the person going the wrong way on the road. (Unless the person who didn't look is drunk, of course.)

Fair or not, right or wrong ... this isn't a new situation and we know how this is going to turn out. Don't like it? Don't go the wrong way on the road. (Or if you do, be aware that others are likely to not even look for you and ride/drive accordingly.)

Yup, he pointed out how unfair it was, but how the cyclist got all the blame anyways. Being a practical guy, he'd probably suggest complying with the law as a way to avoid these situations.

Ultimately, if you're breaking the law in any way when there's a collision -- it's quite likely that it will be used against you when assigning blame, even if the connection to the collision is rather tenuous. (And in this case -- it's not really tenuous at all. The unfair part is that all the blame was assigned to the cyclist, not just half of it.)