Radiological investigations contribute little in differentiating the problems of patients with whiplash injuries. Nevertheless the more prolonged cases of whiplash injuries must not be attributed to preexisting degenerative disease, despite radiologically-proven medicolegal opinion. In this study, 60 patients who were seen for whiplash injuries in the Department for Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery at the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf for clinical and radiological evaluation, an average of 5.7 years post injury, were divided into two groups (n = 30) depending on radiologically-proven preexisting degenerative changes of the cervical spine. On average the patients with degenerative changes were 11.2 years older than those with healthy vertebral columns and also demonstrated an increase in acute symptoms in the lower cervical spine (cervicobrachial syndrome). The chronicity of individual symptoms such as neck-pain, dizziness, nausea and psychological illness was also observed in both groups. Problems such as paresthesias as well as pain in the shoulder-arm-area appeared to increase in subsequent check-ups, irrespective of the earlier degenerative changes. Patients with typical posterior headaches recovered faster when they had radiologically normal spines. Presenting late, there was a significant accumulation of patients with pre-existing degenerative changes complaining merely of tinnitus. The earlier changes in any individual motion segment do not determine the clinical course of whiplash injuries, but merely represent an area of increased vulnerability to trauma. On the other hand, trauma has not been proven to influence the development or aggravation of degenerative changes in normal or diseased spines. We are not able to differentiate the posttraumatic course from the natural history of the degenerative process, either clinically or radiologically. Considering the involvement of sensitive neurological structures the classical objective organic diagnosis of "whiplash injury" may not be adequate in describing the complaints of patients, and should not be used to justify the rejection of the patients subjective symptoms as mere simulation for financial gains. The evaluation of the patients' X-rays using Arlen's technique sheds no further light on the issue.