The principle is no different, but the practice might differ significantly. With vehicle safety there's a reasonably common, agreed upon set of vehicle conditions which can be checked with a inspection; do your brake lights work, tires aren't bald, etc. There is also a framework of regulation (at the product level vehicles have to pass a set of design-level safety tests), as well as policing on actual roads to execute vehicle maintenance checks as needed.
I'm not sure we know what a similar framework would look like with consumer devices. I can see the utility, but I would also worry about regulatory overreach, and giving big brother another point of control to latch onto.
I feel that in the age of technological achievements we currently live in, figuring out a way where we can require a certain level of security on these devices without running afoul of "big brother" syndrome seems well within the realm of possibilities.
It's also worth noting had the IoT companies simply done the baseline level of security of making the user change the password that such regulation wouldn't even be needed, so forgive me if I'm unable to care about their stake in things.
My point is that it's not a technical problem. Some IoT devices have failed their "vehicle safety check". Now who has the authority to take them off the road? Who has the authority to ensure that their poor design isn't even allowed on the road? Do we actually want anyone to hold that authority?
Is there some other way to achieve the same results without formal regulations - to review bad designs and keep them from being sold, and taking bad security designs/implementations off the internet?
I'm not sure we know what a similar framework would look like with consumer devices. I can see the utility, but I would also worry about regulatory overreach, and giving big brother another point of control to latch onto.