It's expected that if a lot more people cycle, you're gonna have more cycling deaths than in countries where fewer people cycle.
If nobody would cycle you'd have zero cycling deaths, hooray problem solved, you successfully gamed the metrics, if wining arbitrary metrics is the goal.
Was that your goal?
Random numbers alone mean nothing if they're meaningless and out of context. More people are killed every year by cows than by sharks. Does that make cows more dangerous than sharks or just that people are more likely to be around cows more often than around sharks?
If Germany has a higher population than UK, and also a higher percentage of people of that population cycle, then yeah you're gonna have more dead cyclists. D'uh!
Show me deaths per capita and cycling rates per capita, then we can talk about drawing a conclusion.
DE 5.5%: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
_v3.png){kind=link}
UK 1.7%: https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics
Great Britain has half the bike usage of Germany. Germany has 36 million bikers (43% of 84 million), Great Brittain about 12 million (19% of 68 million), so the stats line up more than you'd think at a first glance. The difference between Germany and Great Brittain becomes laugably obvious when you look at the statistics for how many people use bikes as a primary transport method (6% GB vs 21% DE).
That said, biking outside of large cities in Germany is kind of terrible, so I'm not at all surprised about how deadly cycling in Germany, though that may just be my spoilt Dutch take on things.
Edit: my source for these statistics: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...
The UK has one quarter the deaths despite having ~3/4 of the population of Germany...