Apparently some people are reading only the article and not the actual ruling by the judge. According to the actual ruling:

~ The ticket the cyclist got for riding in the middle of the lane has already been decided and was decided in the cyclists favor due to the officer in question failing to show up in court to present his case against the cyclist.
~ The judges ruling was that the law in that specific state does not specifically allow for taking the right most lane because and only because there is more then one lane in the direction of travel and motorists can simply pass in the other lane. This is true if you read the actual state laws in question that were quoted in the judges ruling.
~ The judges ruling specifically acknowledges that in some cases a cyclist may legitimately take the lane and not move to the right for safety reasons.
~ The judges ruling is that if there is not a safety issue preventing the cyclist from moving right to allow overtaking traffic to pass then a cyclist cannot legally refuse to do so.
~ The judge ruled that by the specific state law of the state in question a cyclist may ride in the center of the lane regardless of the presence of a safety issue or not if overtaking traffic desiring to pass is not present.

~ The officer in question is still going to court on multiple serious charges that were not dismissed including malicious prosecution, threatening to maliciously arrest the cyclist in question if "he ever saw him riding in the middle of the road ever again on any road regardless of the circumstances", and illegal seizure of the cyclists camera and video recording of the confrontation. Because the judge believed that there was too much credibility to these charges to strike them on dismissal and believes there is a legitimate reason to hold trial on those charges against the officer in question.


If you just read the article and not the actual ruling by the judge, you don't get all that and the article in some places is misleading and misrepresents the actual ruling by the judge in question.