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.
There already exists taxi regulations that cover Uber, which in every respect is taxi company. However, you're dead right as to why Uber is pushing for these changes - it allows them to operate and claim legitimacy, while providing a framework of regulation that is a "light" version of what real taxi companies have to deal with, addressing only the most egregious flouting of commercial taxi operations such as commercial insurance and background checks. These so-called ridesharing regulations appear to completely ignore allowable fare increases (Uber's surge pricing), who they can or cannot pick up, handicap access, amongst others. They are a way for Uber to legitimize into law their competitive advantage.