Sorry, over the limit is over the limit, no matter if its the next day or you moved your car a few yards, a kid can still run out in front of you and it could have been his child.
Granted, but I still think we should have more flexible sentencing. By default, people should still qualify for a minimum of the current ban, but I feel that the defence should be able to put forward certain factors in mitigation, reducing the length of the ban.
In this scenario, people still end up off the road for a period of time. They still have a drink-driving conviction, and the associated increase in insurance premiums. They still get hit with a hefty fine. The difference being that they don't end up paying with their livelihoods, and becoming another unemployment and house reposession statistic just for making a stupid mistake.
In my opinion, pre-meditated drink-drivers still deserve the full wrath of the law. I just wonder how many of us can say, hand on heart, that there's never been any question in our mind that we might be over the limit - especially the morning after.
I bought one of those self-test breathalisers a while back for morning-after use, but even when I used it I wasn't certain of the accuracy. I'd only drive if I could blow a zero the following morning (there was only one time I didn't, and we were still drinking shorts at 4am that day - we were supposed to be on the road at 8
It eventually stopped working, and I bought a replacement which was much fancier, but the digital display was a lot less accurate (it lit up in segments rather than moving a needle.) I trusted that one even less, though I'd still use it if I could remember where I put it.
Apart from potential innacuracy, the danger with self-test devices is people using them to prove their BAC level prior to leaving the pub. It can take half an hour or more after the last drink for your BAC to peak, so you could be under the limit when you get behind the wheel, but over when you're stopped.