Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep "outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition.
Another typical aspect to this situation is how technology upends a structure put in place by legalistic means.
Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business. Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc.
The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion.
I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.
They have: http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI
The primary intent of medallions is not to raise funds for infrastructure. Their goal is to keep people out of the business. You can tell by the fact that they're regressive: they burden lower-income persons more than higher-income thereby preventing new competition from low-skilled workers and guaranteeing safety to the incumbents.
A regressive policy has nothing to do with the goal of the medallions. They cost what market forces will support. The goal of high-end watches is to keep poor people from knowing what time it is.
The medallions aren't for infrastructure. I'd argue the medallions are supported by both the city and existing cabbies because of congestion and quality management issues. It's a way to ensure minimal levels of service and to punish bad (well, abhorrent) service.
The tax on fares is for infrastructure and administration. In NYC, $.50/trip is imposed. What's Uber paying?
I guess Uber couldn't know when it was dealing with a NYC fare subject to the tax... Oh, wait they couldn't offer that since it would imply they were a taxi service subject to other regs... So, they have to flaunt all the laws and put themselves in a legal bind that isn't all "just obvious barriers to entry."
Uber is doing what it can disrupt the status quo, the laws are ambiguous enough that they can get away with it. Admirable in my opinion.
I think perhaps both are true, though one only accidentally so. Taxi drivers' see themselves as protesting for stronger enforcement of the regulations. I suspect a large portion of the public, though, will recognize the protests as a sort of performance art designed to illustrate that the regulations are problematic and could perhaps stand to be revised.
And of course this is true for every country affected.
edit: reading again - yeah it's a pretty black and white statement and the truth is always grey-er, but I'm an American who has absolutely no faith in most of our govt anymore so it hits home.
Technology has succeeded where the government has failed.
Private car hire services (minicabs in the UK) does not have the same licensing requirements as black cabs (licensed taxis)
They'll still get hosed because without a medallion system bottlenecking the amount of suppliers, taxi service becomes a race to the bottom that can't support a decent living. But at least they won't be _twice_ hosed like they are now.
EDIT: I'm not saying Uber is wrong and should be stopped and the taxi drivers protected. On the contrary, the legislation could be opened up, dropping both protection and regulation of the taxi industry, now that Uber exists as a competing solution. However, the current state of affairs, where some drivers are taxed and regulated (taxis) and others are not (Uber drivers) is just going to make the former group collapse under the burden of regulation.
Also, I'm merely observing that opening the market to a huge supplier pool effectively means the end of the taxi driving profession (for reasons that have already been stated a hundred times before). Not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way the market works.
Cabs do not have a meter. The customer can set a price before the journey. These must be pre-booked by phone. In theory there is a lot of regulation around criminal checks etc.
Uber exists in a grey middle ground. They are booked via the app; and the app acts like a meter. The regulator for London has recently said that the app is not a meter and thus Uber is fine.
So long as Uber is complying with local laws I'm fine with them operating. I guess they should be prepared for some of the backlash they'll face when an Uber driver murders a passenger. (Because, with a large enough number of drivers and passwngers and years it'll happen some time).
"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'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 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).
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.
As usual it turns out that there are good & bad taxi drivers, and good & bad mini-cab drivers / companies too.
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.
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.
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.
Assuming your conjectured startup somehow conferred the medical skills you would have just found a great way to lower everyone's medical bills.
I also suspect that the taxicab regulations would prohibit taxicabs from using alternative meters, so taxi drivers could not be Uber drivers at the same time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
Not all unfair regulation, since one could argue that the regulation that protects the taxi drivers from incumbents it's pretty unfair. They are protesting just against unfair regulation that hurts them.