It's horses for courses really. I wouldn't contemplate going out in a vest and shorts at the moment as I like to be warm and a couple of layers of clothing doesn't bother me, even during faster runs. Also, I think it makes the spring/summer easier to adapt to. If you're used to a vest and shorts all year round, you have no extra layers to strip off when the temperature rises.
Simon, that doesn't sound like a good decision to me either. I think men and women should both become vets at 40.
Seren, I was referring to the organisers of county events, who don't seem to like changing the established ways of doing things. Women over 55 is the top category in our league, so any female of 64 (or older) will be competing with 55 year olds, as Yvonne says. They could argue that not enough older women compete, but perhaps that's because they are put off by the age categories.
I've always thought the categories should be the same. It seems like an antiquated system. Why should women become veterans at 35 but men at 40? That suggests women age faster, which is clearly not the case. And at the other end of the scale, too, it should be equal, otherwise more mature women are at a disadvantage. When I've mentioned this to race organisers however, they just say that how it's always been done. If you follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, though, women still wouldn't be allowed to run marathons.