In the news

Suppose we put together a libel case (individually or as a community) against a newspaper which publishes an article such as the aforementioned, how likely is it to progress far enough for an actual hearing in court?

Based on my interpretation of this paragraph on Wikipedia, I think it has potential to be within the scope of current law:

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals... in a manner that ...causes a reasonable person to think worse of them.
Allowable defenses are

[]justification (the truth of the statement),
[]fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held),
[]absolute privilege []made in Parliament or in court, or []fair reports of allegations in the public interest)
[]qualified privilege (freedom of expression outweighing protection of reputation, without granting immunity).

An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation.

A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth...
A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages.[citation needed] To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

So, basis for case:

• negligent misrepresentations of Cyclists in "The Article" are likely to causes a reasonable person to think worse of Cyclists
  
• Such reasonable persons would easily identify me as a cyclist, not restricted to the times when I am actually performing that activity.
  
• If the same author can be shown to have demonstrated an understanding of the truth in previous articles which conflicts with representations made in The Article, then we can legitimately claim Malice, and hence add punitive damages (probably big) onto compensatory damages (probably small).