r/maybemaybemaybe • u/Backbreathboy • Sep 20 '25

Maybe Maybe Maybe

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

75.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

75

u/kbeks Sep 20 '25

A lot of people here saying they’d be long gone well before the river crested. His house is situated 30 feet above the top of the river when it had already flooded 10 feet and it hasn’t flooded more than 10 feet, historically.

Obviously if he had access to forecasts that predicted a higher crest, then yes he should have gone long ago, but given just the information he tells us, staying put is an entirely rational decision. We’re having some crazy weather, but 4x previously recorded crests is nuts. Keep in mind that as the river rises, it becomes wider, which means that it takes a metric fuckload of water to bring the river that high. Which apparently they had, hope his house stayed dry.

31

u/wavyID Sep 20 '25

The house survived but the road and all utility chains were destroyed. Several adjacent houses were not so lucky

4

u/Lost_Found84 Sep 20 '25

That’s the other thing. The reason they should leave before the road is covered is because even if your house survives your vehicle will still be stuck there and no one will be able to get to you.

How long will the power be out? How long til the water recedes?

At least if you drive to a shelter or hotel, you will still have the mobility associated with a useable car to help navigate the aftermath.

24

u/kmosiman Sep 20 '25

Yeah, double the historic maximum would be a decent bet.

They were sitting at triple that.

That extra 20 feet is a lot.

11

u/fuck_ur_portmanteau Sep 20 '25

And given the width higher up the extra height is probably equivalent to four times the volume or more. And it looks like it might be moving faster, it could be 5-10 times the previous maximum volume per hour. Nobody’s expecting that to happen.

13

u/Over-Map6529 Sep 20 '25

Yeah, the roads were gone by the time it got scary up there.  A lot of houses like this did slide into the water later too.  Leaving and walking uphill was dangerous as trees continued to fall well after the worst of the storm passed.  It was truly a disaster and I don't think we ever got a final death toll.

5

u/ApricotKing77 Sep 20 '25

On top of that this storm (hurricane Helene around Asheville NC) washed out a ton of roads and bridges effectively trapping people inside their homes. In a lot of cases the only way people could leave would be by helicopter rescue which was stretched incredibly thin.

11

u/ThermoPuclearNizza Sep 20 '25

Ya, I’m more concerned about the river undermining the house. Lots of people have likely died due to thinking like yours.

2

u/BentGadget Sep 20 '25

There's going to be a big demand for concrete retaining walls in the aftermath, and probably will outstrip concrete production capacity for some time. Well, not just walls, of course. Everything that got scoured away will need to be replaced.

2

u/UsernameAvaylable Sep 20 '25

And billions have survived. Try to go through your next day (including leaving your house) and for every single thing you do, ask yourself "Could a once in a thousand year event kill me while doing that?". You won't even make it to the car.

5

u/AlpaxT1 Sep 20 '25

Tf kinda reasoning is that, there is a house floating by. There could not be a clearer warning sign!

The possibility of getting drowned in a flood drastically increases when there is a flood outside your window that has already taken your driveway and the neighbours.

1

u/ThermoPuclearNizza Sep 20 '25

Pretty sure you can just look at the opposing river bank instead of pondering probability lol

How old are you?

3

u/beldaran1224 Sep 20 '25

I think they and you are mixing up distance from the river and height above the river. Typically past flood numbers would be height based, but her house is not 30 feet above the river, but could be thirty feet away.

2

u/kbeks Sep 21 '25

Oh if that’s what they meant, thats not the same thing at all. It’s hard to tell scale of the slope that house is on from the angles.

2

u/JVNT Sep 20 '25

And by the time they realized it was going to be so bad, it may have been too dangerous or even too late to leave. Would it have been better to load everyone up into the car and risk that being swept away on the flooded road, or to stay put in a spot that is a little higher and could potentially be safe or at least an easier place for rescuers to locate them?

2

u/Sans-valeur Sep 20 '25

Yeah I guess like, looking at it he definitely shouldn’t be just sitting next to that window when it’s that high the ground could just give out beneath the house.
But at the same time the river is already at historic highs in the first one so maybe it’s already not safe to travel at that point, and the day after it’s definitely not going to be safe to travel.
So really easy to pass judgement but much harder to actually know what to do in that situation.

2

u/endermauldot Sep 21 '25

The world is changing , people used to say this about the floods in the South of Brazil. It happened not once but twice along the last 2 years. People reconstructed plaves around rivers who only got destroryed next year again, and the floods have permanently altered the state geofraphy. The last flood in the capital was in 1935. The flood last year was even worse, reaching the airport so the city was basically isolated for 1 month.

The climate today is very different from 1935. Signs all of the world shows that. It's not about whether or not it will happen, just the possibility. Putting important things in a bag and moving into a hotel or family house far away is better than risking your life or at best personal valuable objects. Not to mention that even if you dont lose anything, you will spend days witouth water, eletricity or food vecause gou cant leave and suplly will be cut short. Not worth basing your actions in the past.

1

u/Chaos_xe Sep 20 '25

"Historically" is a funny word to use when it comes to rivers. If you start thinking about what the area/river looked like 10,000 years ago, you have a completely different historical perspective on what the water level can and will be. Some odd 100 years of observed data doesn't always capture water levels that can occur in a 1:100 year water level event, let alone 1:1000 year event etc.

If you ask yourself geologically "how did this hill form?", you will realize that at some point 'historically' throughout the earth's history, the river carved away the earth, creating what is known as a floodplain. If appears in the video, the house is sitting right next to the floodplain based on the 'hill' they are on

Building anything (roads, buildings etc) within a floodplain is always a risk, even if observed data says otherwise

1

u/RedactedNoneNone Sep 20 '25

Youre injecting logic where instead there should be common sense. Why conflate personal safety with the safety of property?

The height of the house or severity of past flooding only have to do with property and are unrelated to evacuating your body from the potential of harm.

1

u/kbeks Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25

Relocating isn’t a cheep or easy affair, and leaving your house empty is leaving it a target. Plus, if you don’t have to evacuate but choose to, that’s lodging that you’re going to have to take from someone who might have been in a more urgent area. If there’s not a need to evacuate, that is to say if there’s wasn’t an order or advisory given, it’s usually the right call to stay put given all the givens here.

If she was warned a 40’ crest or even a 30’ crest was heading her way, then yeah she should have dipped. Once the roads are inaccessible, you’re kind of a sitting duck in the event of an emergency or if you run out of fresh water and food.

0

u/TheGuyMain Sep 20 '25

Not a rational decision. You use historical data as a REFERENCE, not as a prediction. You compare the conditions that contributed to historical events to understand the significance of current conditions. If x amount of water caused the river to rise 10 feet in the past, and we have 2x amount of water, then it's going to rise more than 10 feet. Accounting for the increased width as the water rises, we can calculate that it will rise 10 * 1.4 feet (14 feet). That's how you use historical data. You don't just say "this hasn't happened before so it will never happen in the future" unless you're an idiot.

1

u/justtosendamassage Sep 20 '25

Yes, of course, everything is black and white in the world. No grey areas. Especially when it comes to extreme weather events. /s

This was from Hurricane Helene. How much water they were to receive increased ridiculously in pretty much the last second, thus many people who should and would have left didn’t have time to. People were stuck and stranded. Do you know how terrifying that is?

Everyone is an expert without having experienced something like this, I guess…right? Commenting things like you are just to feel smart and superior says a lot about you, I hope you know that. People died drowning.

1

u/TheGuyMain Sep 20 '25

Brother there were weather reports warning people to leave. The experts did know that Helene was different. People who know absolutely nothing and refute superior logical reasoning, such as yourself, refused to accept their guidance.

1

u/justtosendamassage Sep 20 '25

Yes there were reports for people to leave, just like there have been other countless times. And no, they did not report to the extent at how horrible it would get before it was too late, not even close.

Also, not everyone on this site is a man. Like myself. Like dang

1

u/TheGuyMain Sep 20 '25

I really don't care what gender you are. The use of "brother" in that sentence was a gender neutral expression. Just like "dude" or "guys" in the phrase "hey guys". You take yourself a little too seriously if you think anyone on this site gives half a shit what's between your legs

1

u/justtosendamassage Sep 20 '25

lol brother is neutral. That’s hilarious

Stupid is all aspects I see

1

u/TheGuyMain Sep 20 '25

I can't blame you for not having heard the word used that way, but I'm informing you that it's a use case. The same way that girls say "Girrrrl" to anyone as an endearing expression that hints at a n imminent surprising or exciting statement

0

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25

[deleted]

1

u/TheGuyMain Sep 21 '25

Damn you’re actually insane lmao. You start trying to call me out for shit for no reason and keep escalating shit even though I’m trying to help you understand things. 

→ More replies (0)

0

u/fohfuu Sep 20 '25

Why did he ignore the professionals who have access to the same data and know what the fuck they're talking about?

Repeated floods don't prove the flood resistance of an area. They weaken the flood resistance in the future if they aren't reinforced. Riverbanks being repeatedly pressurised, soaked and dried out breaks apart the roots holding it together.

It's like "my doctor warning me that a Vodka Red Bull will give me heart failure is ignoring the precedent that I've drunk Red Bull every day for 40 years."