SALEM - A bill that would require children 12 and younger to ride in the rear seat of cars was endorsed by a House panel Monday, despite criticism from Republicans who expressed concern about legislating common sense.

Children younger than 9 have a 50 percent lower risk of injury in the rear seats than in the front, according to a recent study by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Experts say children are safer in the back because they are typically farther away from the point of impact, and because they have a row of seats that act as a protective barrier.

“Auto crashes are particularly hard on young occupants of cars,” said Rep. Greg Macpherson, D-Lake Oswego, a chief sponsor of the bill. “We need to do a good job of making sure we position our passengers in a way that is the safest for them.”

Carla Levinksi, a program manager at the Oregon Department of Transportation, said airbags can be an added danger to children riding in the front.

According to ODOT, 1,354 children younger than 8 were injured and six were killed in car crashes last year in Oregon. Many of the injured had head and spinal injuries, with some resulting in lifelong injuries.

But despite those numbers, Republicans said it's not the state's place to bar children from the front seat.

“That is an area where if they would just allow that determination to be made by parents, as far as what is best for them in their vehicle and their children, I'm fine with that,” said Rep. Linda Flores, R-Clackamas. “But saying you must put a 12-year-old or younger in the back seat is kind of beyond the pale for me.”

Besides requiring preteens to ride in rear seats, the proposal would force most children between 4 and 8 years old to use a booster seat and infants less than 1-year-old would be required to travel in a rear-facing child safety seat.

According to state statistics, two out of every five children killed or injured in car crashes in Oregon were using ill-fitted adult lap and shoulder seat belts or wore no restraints at all.

Studies indicate there is a direct correlation between state laws on child safety restraints and the number of children appropriately strapped in. A report issued this month by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm shows that parents were much more likely to restrain their young children appropriately if a state law required them to do so.

“These studies confirm that mandating age-appropriate restraint is a very effective way to address the leading cause of death and disability to children in these age ranges,” said Flaura K. Winston, the Scientific Director of the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Philadelphia hospital. “Many people rely on state laws to tell them how to best protect occupants.”

But Republicans contend the law goes too far in telling people how best to protect their children. GOP committee members balked at a provision that was added to the bill that would make it illegal to drive a vehicle with more people than safety belts.

“If I'm out getting my Christmas tree and shove an extra person into the back of my Suburban, I'll be breaking the law,” said Rep. Kevin Cameron, R-Salem.