There are 10,072 drivers with 12 points or more still on the roads including one from Nottingham with 30, according to figures highlighted by road safety charity Brake and insurance company Direct Line. Drivers facing a ban can be treated more leniently because of 'exceptional hardship'. Two columnists discuss whether this approach is right...

"YES," says celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman.

WHEN setting the law, Parliament quite rightly said the magistrates in court are not robots and in certain circumstances they can use discretion.

They said that if people suffer exceptional hardship as a consequence of the ban, there can be exceptions made.

The burden is on the defendant to argue their case for not being banned, and it all depends on their argument.

Then the court can use its discretion and depart from the set period of a six-month ban for getting 12 points.

They can say they will still ban them for six months or more, or ban them for less, or not ban them at all.

The type of driving offence doesn't matter. So if you only just exceeded the speed limit, or it had changed without you knowing, it's a complete irrelevance.

It's all about the circumstances of the person. It can relate to innocent victims that would be affected by a disqualification.

So if someone had a wife who needed to go to hospital every day, but lived in a rural place far away from it, that might count.

They could argue that it would cause enormous problems to them to lose the licence, and possibly cause costs to the NHS in terms of transport.

If you had employees reliant on your business not folding, it could be the same. There are all sorts of innocent victims, and that can be persuasive.

I think the law is absolutely spot on in this respect.

You have to take into account that many people's livelihoods are on the line in these cases.

And I think it's very important that we don't have a robotic system in the courts.

Magistrates are people like us and will think the same of things like speeding, so they should be allowed to use their discretion.

And clearly if you get back to court again after being let off for exceptional hardship, the court is likely to say you are pushing it. These drivers are human beings, so they should be treated as such.

"NO," says Nikki Webber, Nottingham road safety campaigner

I THINK people should be banned from driving for getting 12 points or more, even if they claim they have exceptional hardship.

Exceptional hardship is not losing your car.

Hardship is if an innocent person is hit by a car where the driver is speeding, and having the rest of their life taken from them.

Losing the use of a car for a short-term period is not the same as losing your body or your brain functions, or even your life.

Perhaps if you need a car because of health issues, such as getting someone to a hospital every day, you should be allowed to drive.

But otherwise people should be banned for getting the points, because having trouble getting to work is not hardship, it's just misfortune.

Nor is relying on your car for business purposes.

It's always possible for you to get a bus, something which people with brain damage might have trouble with.

I have experience of this myself. In 1990 I was hit by a car at the age of nine and I was left with severe brain damage and physical and motor neurone problems.

Now I can walk short distances but I need to use a wheelchair to go any further, and I have other limits.

I need carers to come in to help me with everyday tasks such as doing the washing, and I doubt I could maintain a job or a family because of my condition and what I have to deal with. So I know the consequences of dangerous driving very well.

I don't think being unable to drive for a while compares to that in any way.

We should definitely crack down on drivers to stop road traffic accidents.

We could perhaps extend punishments and make sure drivers with points meet victims of accidents.

We need more awareness and we should certainly be hard on drivers who endanger the lives of others.