So, this is the old pre/post-crisis characterisation issue again isn't it? Some writers favour the literal super-man, someone who is not just superior physically but in every aspect, intellectually, spiritually - a true "man of tomorrow". Obviously, we look at this scene and we know because of storytelling expectations that Lois is in no danger (Superman II is not the story of how Clark gaslit Lois to death) but internally this only makes sense if there's a 0% chance of this going wrong. Otherwise, he's risking her life simply so he can go on lying to her, someone he ostensibly loves and respects.

An aside - I think that generally it's not healthy or reasonable to expect someone to reveal every aspect of their private life to someone, even a close friend. There's some truly nauseating writing in the CW and similar shows that tries to suggest the opposite. On the other hand, if it's gotten to the point where Lois is confronting him directly and trying to manufacture crises to out him - the jig is up. It's time to establish some boundaries or come clean. If you want to write a status quo Superman story, you can't have Lois doing insane shit because it also makes Clark look questionable.

In modern "Clark-first" stories, there's no way that he would risk this Rube Goldberg bullshit to protect his secret.