A motorist who believed he had driven over a pothole when he ran over a cyclist in Cambridge has been cleared off driving without due care and attention.

Cyclist Daniel Davis was lying on the ground after falling from his bike when he was run over by a car driven by 42-year-old company director Mark Tyler 12 months ago, reports Cambridge News.

During his trial at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court, Mr Tyler, from Whitchurch, Hampshire said he had not seen Mr Davis, but insisted he was not distracted by the hands-free mobile phone he was using.

The incident happened at around 6pm on 27 November at the junction of Brooklands Road and Trumpington Road.

Mr Tyler, who said it had left him “shocked and devastated,” told the court: “As I turned into Trumpington Road I felt something but it felt no worse than some of the potholes which are around.

“I stopped immediately and got out of the car to understand what had occurred and my car had gone over the cyclist.”

It was not reported how Mr Davis, who suffered a cardiac arrest as he lay beneath Mr Tyler’s car, came to be lying in the road prior to the collision, nor were details of any other injuries or his recovery recorded.

The motorist said:  “It was truly awful. I tried to be as helpful as possible – had I been distracted I wouldn’t have been able to remember the specific details of it all.”

Defending him, Simon Rice said: “You have heard absolutely no evidence as to how the cyclist ended up on the floor – there is no suggestion Mr Tyler hit the cyclist and caused him to fall.

“It is a very difficult case and an emotive issue for all parties involved. Mr Tyler is of good character and has an impeccable driving history.”

Lead magistrate Phil King acknowledged Mr Tyler’s driving record and also highlighted “significant gaps” in the evidence presented to the court.

“This incident clearly had huge consequences,” he told Mr Tyler.  “It is accepted you were the driver of the vehicle that collided with a cyclist and there is no dispute about the time or place.

“What is not accepted is whether or not you were distracted by the use of a hands-free phone or whether your driving fell below the test of a competent driver.”

Acquitting the defendant, he added: “We find that whilst phone conversations can cause distractions there is no direct evidence that this was the case in this incident.”