If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors".

"The knowledge" may very well at one point have been a reasonable requirement for a taxi driver, but at least as GPS satnavs got good, it's just not anymore. The purpose of "the knowledge" today is only to serve as a barrier to entry to protect incumbents against competition.

Edit: Footnote on doctors: It's a poor analogy as a taxi-driver taking a poor route (picking good routes is the singular advantage the knowledge provides) doesn't carry anywhere near as bad consequences for the "patient" as a doctor making a mistake.

It won't be very long before NPs using expert systems will do a better job than physicians using the same old techniques they always have, for at least 95% of patients.

That's a great analogy. Its only flaw, as you say, is that doctors should be regulated closely- but to me this only brings up the question of why cabbies are as regulated.

It's kind of like if travel agents were regulated, and suddenly expedia or kayak existed. They can do an almost-as-good job through technology, and a "mistake" analogous to the taxi driver taking a poor route, i.e. Expedia connecting you through a worse city or not finding a deal 10% cheaper.

The $200 tool is coming to disrupt doctors eventually, who act as human pattern matchers for most of their time and much of what they do could easily be replaced (and even done better) via systems like Watson. When this happens, it will be great for the developing world where doctors aren't very common anyways, while first world doctors will probably be able to shut it out for awhile until the advantages are crystal clear and undeniable.

The same with self driving cars, its not like Uber or the taxi industry are long for this world without drastically changing business models (maybe 10 or 15 years tops).

A driver didn't have enough sleep or one whith medical condition might very well kill you in an accident though.

While I understand the intent here, do taxi drivers get checked against the potential for a stroke? That could happen to either side.

I don't disagree - I'm just saying I'd understand why the doctors would be upset about it.

In theory, that's great. In practice, cabbies still rip people off sometimes. I'd be happier if they always took the Google Maps route.

It's sad but they are simply a victim of technology. Before sat nav, minicab drivers were very unreliable. They would get lost, they would have to consult maps, etc. Now, a minicab is as good or better than a taxi.

Ugh, no. There are times when the Google Maps route would take way longer than even reasonably obvious alternative routes. Particularly in London. Google tries to pick the quickest route, but these roads are often way too busy.

As usual it turns out that there are good & bad taxi drivers, and good & bad mini-cab drivers / companies too.

> I'd be happier if they always took the Google Maps route.

Part of being a good taxi-driver is knowing which parts of the city are going to busy at different points of time.

If a taxi takes a detour from the best map-presented route you don't know if they're giving you a faster journey, or ripping you off. Too often people assume the latter.

Maybe I was being prematurely futuristic and unfair, but it seems that at some point Google Maps will be better at routing than the average cabbie.

Google has all the information a cabbie has (road layout, major disruptions, historical traffic patterns, speed limits). They also have real-time traffic information. This is the kind of problem that computers tend to beat humans at, eventually.

I expect it is only a matter of time.

Using the same kind of volunteers who contribute to OpenStreetMap it should be possible to update routing based on temporary road-works (which might last for 3-5 days, here in Scotland), which would otherwise catch drivers out by surprise with detours.

Google Maps is blocked in China, I hope they don't try to use it.

Every investment carries a risk. This is true about "learning the London streets", too. Especially in the era of ubiquitous GPS-enabled mobile phones.

Assuming your conjectured startup somehow conferred the medical skills you would have just found a great way to lower everyone's medical bills.

So they spent a lot of time and money learning to crack buggy whips very well. Too bad there are automobiles now.

Well, medical school is useful. 34 months of learning the London streets is an artificial barrier to entry for new competitors.