I have noticed in a great number of movies, when two actors are talking to each other in the car, that the drivers eyes are off the road and on one of the passengers for so long that anyone driving that car would be dead as the result of a crash. I can understand if they are driving in a desert or a long straight road with no traffic but most of the talking driver movies I have seen are in a medium or large city. They have their eyes off the road for up to 30-45 seconds. Try driving almost anywhere for 30-45 seconds without looking at the road and I would think that a crash would be imminent. Why don’t the directors take this into consideration when they are making these movies?
Dramatic licence over traffic safety, maybe?
The close up scenes involving a driver & passenger and done by either towing the car or having it on a flatbed. Traffic safety is of no concern as no one is actually driving the car.
My guess is the director either doesn’t care or wants the actors to have a normal conversation, regardless of the setting.
I’ve wondered the reason for that, too. It actually prevents me from paying attention to the dialog, because I’m too busy wondering when they’re going to pay attention to where they’re going. Along the same lines, I get irritated by how often characters in movies and on TV climb into a car and speed off without putting on their seatbelts. Hell, no one ever wore a seatbelt in Adaptation. Sure, two people died because of it, but sheesh. It was distracting.
Hm, on some movie (or perhaps sitcom), I remember that the steering wheel movements were totally unrelated to the view out the back. You know, long turns with no change of the wheel, and vice versa.
Thanks for the spoiler warning, Beadalin.
Not.
Oh crap. Sorry about that-- I wasn’t thinking.
Since this is about motion pictures, I’ll move this over to Cafe Society.
They spoofed this in Strange Brew.
I’m with Beadlin on this - it’s distracting to see the “driver” not watching the road. It’s a reminder that he’s not really driving the car and it spoils my suspension of disbelief.
Yes it annoys me, too. I know they aren’t in actual danger, but it just lifts you right out of the reality of the moment 
If you’re into cars as a hobby, you’ll quickly see that filmmakers nearly always get something wrong.
Much of the time, I notice that the actors are supposedly driving down the road, but with the steering column shifter in Park, and the key in the Off position.
Or when they show someone’s feet on the pedals, the underdash courtesy light is on—because a careless photographer left the car door open while filming.
I’m guessing since it’s a movie and not real life they can do it.
Have you ever noticed how many cars in movies, TV shows, etc., DO NOT HAVE REARVIEW MIRRORS? I suppose that’s because the presence of a an object in the middle of the upper center of the screen messes up the “picture.”
What I love is when the rearview mirror is missing and the driver looks up where the mirror is supposed to be, to “look” at something behind them. “Hey, we’re being followed!” How can he tell? 
Forgot to mention the scene in The Truman Show where Truman and his wife are sitting in the car in their driveway, both “looking” in the rearview mirror at what’s behind the car. Can’t work – they’d see different things, at different angles.
Yeah, and what about Toonces? I bet he wasn’t really driving.
They never, never, never have to wait to make a left turn. The road is always empty unless they need a dramatic almost crash, or squealing of brakes.
Not looking at the road has always bugged me too.
It’s a dramatic convention. Filmmakers must make all sorts of compromises between realism and storytelling efficiency. In this case, allowing the actors to relate to one another makes the emotion of the conversation easier to follow, but at the cost of a more realistic driving environment.
Same reason we don’t ever see characters circling the block looking for a parking place. They just pull up right in front of where they’re going.
Same reason there’s always a long baguette sticking out of a grocery bag, so we don’t wonder whether there are groceries or hardware supplies or a human head in the bag.
Same reason foreigners speak accented English to one another.
Same reason computers make little beeps and chirps when actors type on them and perform other simple tasks.
Same reason we don’t hear keys or coins jingling in characters’ pockets until they are brought out into view.
Storytelling comes first.
Small trivia note: In the film Touch of Evil, there’s a scene where Charlton Heston is roaring through the alleys of his Mexican town in his convertible. For the shot, director Orson Welles mounted a camera on the hood, and had Heston actually drive, without a tow rig or anything. Look at the scene with this knowledge, and you immediately see the difference in how hard Heston is concentrating on the task as he barrels along. This is especially true given that, later in the same film, there’s a clumsy studio-inserted driving scene that uses a fake car and rear projection, which suffers badly by comparison.
I’m not sure if conversations are that much easier to follow.
I can follow a conversation if the two actors onscreen are not looking at each other, no problem.
However, I follow their conversation less if I am thinking about their impending crash.
Similarly, I would have difficulty following a conversation that took place in a kitchen if one actor has his hand down the garbage disposal the entire time for no reason.
(As an aside, does it seem like the hand in the garbage disposal scene is being overused these days, or is it just me?)
Cervaise is right that it’s a convention, thought of course many conventions exist due more to pure laziness than to some overwhelming necessity. 