I have a 2006 Elise (Toyota engined) and an MX5 ND. I am 66 and had the car for 8 years. There is a knack to getting in and out and it is not an issue, roof up or down. The Elise is fabulous, and the only reason I bought the MX5 is that the ride is too hard for my wife. Consequently, I bought the Mazda, which I love, and it is a lot easier to live with. If the car was purely for me, I would stick with the Lotus. Practicality has not been an issue; I can get my golf clubs in. I’m in Lancashire, and you are welcome to have a drive in my Elise (before I sell in Spring) if you insure yourself. I appreciate that we are a long way apart.
4 Likes
I had a Westfield for 5 years, no windscreen for 4 years just a tiny aero screens a helmet was a must, insects hurt at 70mph, the faster you went the more lift you got under the full face helmet I swear my neck lengthened behalf an inch on some of the lotus blats we went on 
2 Likes
Boxster is much the same size as my mk2 TT. The narrowness of the MX is quite a big factor around here.
I am coming to this late as I am in Australia, coming back in a week to my MX5 and the glorious North Yorkshire Countryside. I read this with sadness. My MX5 NC roadster is perfect for me, aged 68.
My number place is M25 GJT as the car makes me feel 25 again. I have been driving for 50 years plus.
Surely we are a good risk for insurance
Still I got cancelled by Go Insure as they would insure me to ski after 64 year old.
I thought these guys were in business and they are turning away good business. NUTS
Thanks for the post Beryl
2 Likes
No offense guys, and I’m sure you’re well aware of this, but insurers work on a statistical basis - albeit sometimes outdated - and statistically, when somebody starts getting on a bit, they do become a bigger risk. They are more likely to suffer grievous injury in a crash, which is probably one of the bigger determining factors, as these costs can be huge for all sorts of reasons; people are way more expensive to fix than cars!
And, of course, they want your money. Ever wondered why they ask what you do for employment? And why they seem to want you to define it so succinctly? It’s so they can work out how much you earn and thus how much they can charge you. As older men, you are in a special group that is likelier wealthier than the population’s average, but likely to earn slightly less. This makes it hard for them to work out how much they can leverage out of you. Combine this with the increased risk in different areas (especially medically) and it makes it not worth their time. Unfortunately, they have no incentive to be charitable in this regard, and you are at the mercy of cutthroat economics!
The same is true for younger men, so you should be used to it at this point. Younger men are by far the most likely to be involved in an incident resulting in serious injury, thus they are the greatest risk. Maybe somebody will get round to campaigning on men’s behalf once every other gender/sexuality/ethnicity/state of ableness has been elevated to our lofty levels of social benefactory, but then again that would involve dealing with statistics and uncomfortable truths, which is not the modus operandi of the modern campaigner, it seems.
You have my sympathy, venerable ones, but as men, we just have to suck it up!
3 Likes
TIC? I’m pretty sure it’s because experience shows occupation to be predictive of claims cost. Try putting down self-employed musician or roofer.
Circus clowns are the worst, the wheels and doors fall off their car every night.
4 Likes
‘As men, we just have to suck it up!’
And due to so called ‘Equality’ us females too
I used to get an automatic discount of up to 15% off my car insurance because statistically we have fewer Road Traffic Accidents
But I concur…‘younger drivers’ and claimed twice when I was in my mid-twenties [on both occasions doing journeys on behalf of my non driver fiancee then husband]. These claims were made in 1986 !!
THEN NO CLAIMS
Until 2019 when some ejit slashed Bullits Soft Top
What I’ve never understood is why any individual [male or female] gets only 9 years No Claims Discount
When in my case…I hadn’t claimed in over 30 years
Anyone out there can explain this to me ??
2 Likes
Polite way of describing a total scumbag!
2 Likes
The reason for that is because any significant reduction in your premium occurs over the first five years of no claims, if the other four years do add any further discount then it won’t be proportionally anywhere near what those first five get you, if anything at all. So after 9 years, to give any further discount, they would either have to reduce the benefit of the first five years for everybody (which is completely unfair on newer drivers or drivers that haven’t maintained a policy) or discount such miniscule amounts that it is not really worth calculating.