The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.
Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity. Yes, it puts some protections in place: but not much beyond what Uber already provides.
As someone that uses Uber quite a bit (2-3 times per month) I welcome the new legislation as long as it allows Uber to continue to operate. Regulation is not all bad, as long as it is fair and reasonable.
If the driver of a vehicle is not going to the vicinity of your destination whether you are his passenger or not, then it is not ridesharing. It is a paid taxi service or a hired car. If Uber wants to call themselves a rideshare company, then require drivers to register a destination before they can see potential fares, allow them to only take fares going to the same vicinity as their registered destination, and do not allow them to pick up more fares for a new destination (they can drop off a fare along their route and pick up a new one along the same route however) until they have reached their original destination, checked in, and registered a new destination. There: now you are ridesharing.